Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)

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. The two "keep" are qualified as weak, and the second does not even make an argument.  Sandstein  08:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article lacks of notability and a neutral point of view. On notability: the individual has no particular notability and his biography is of little to no interest to the general public. On the neutral point of view: the only reference is taken from the personal website of the subject of the article, which clearly doesn't give a neutral point of view and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.79.141 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completing nomination on behalf of above IP. As for my own view, it looks like A7 speedy bait to me. --Finngall ^talk 17:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He has published at least one book (Alessandro Orsini (23 February 2011). Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-set of Modern Terrorists. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-6139-1.), but the lack of Google Scholar profile makes citation calculations beyond my abilities, so ping User:Randykitty for his take on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet any notability guidelines for academics. Having one book for a sociologist is not enough to make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep No GS profile, but the highest cited publications has less than 30 hits, which is not really enough for PROF. However, there several reviews of the book mentioned by Piotrus have been published ([1],[2],[3]), one of them in the Times Higher Education. I'd say that an article either on the book (briefly mentioning the author) or on the author (but concentrating on the book) would be justified, but not 2 articles. --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete has already been deleted on the Italian wikipedia as non-notable. They would be in a good position to find material demonstrating notability that English speakers might miss; if they haven't found it, it probably doesn't exist. Furius (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Furius, that was in 2007, before his book and the sources that I listed were published. --Randykitty (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. This seems to be his current faculty page [4]. Furius (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

`Weak keep if the article is properly expanded. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2016 (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.