Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor E Reviglio


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 18:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Víctor E Reviglio

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod from last October with no reason given. Non-notable doctor, and article is written like a resume rather than an article. Matt (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I've done some simple cleanup on the page. It certainly still needs work, but the primary reason for nominating it for deletion (reads like a resume) is basically taken care of now. I understand the objection, but not the reasoning that because an article "reads like a resume" is a reason for deletion. Ω (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of impressive research, but nothing notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indocation of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article looks better now, but no notability has been established through significant coverage/peer reviewed research etc Corpx (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The clean-up definitely helped, but it didn't lend any more credibility as far as inclusion. Reading over WP:BIO and WP:BLP, I'm not seeing anything particular that sets this doctor apart from his colleagues. I didn't see anything online about his supposed research (and if he made breakthroughs in his field, I would definitely see a stronger reason to keep). However, if anyone else can come up with more to back up his importance in the field, I would welcome the article being kept and further refined. →JogCon← 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be helpful if the prodder would do the citation search needed to asses notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. A recent Ph.D. with a research profile that does not stand out. His best-cited paper is a case report on a single instance of keratitis after keratomileusis, which does not stand out among nearly 170 papers on similar cases.. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.