Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Tassano

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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Tassano

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable Wikihmc (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has sources that prove notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sufficient reliable sources. Ranger2006(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the proposal-for-deletion flag appears to have been malicious, and a possible instance of sock puppetry.

It was added by someone (86.84.64.37) who ostensibly has no previous history of editing articles on Wikipedia. One minute later a comment endorsing the deletion proposal appeared, from a Wikipedia identity (Wikihmc) which likewise has no previous history of editing.

I find it implausible that someone with no previous experience as a Wikipedia editor should make their first edit the endorsement of an article-deletion proposal.Ranger2006 (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficiently notable. Akkadius (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone do an actual analysis of sourcing beyond saying "there are enough" or "there aren't enough"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His work has been covered by Nature and the British Medical Journal, which are pretty high-quality sources attesting to the notability surrounding his work under GNG and criteria 1 of WP:PROF MarginalCost (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. significant books with substantial reviews is enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep He's been reviewed by at least Nature, the Literary Review, and the British Medical Journal. It seems like that's enough to show he's a notable author.Sandals1 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.