Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Cardone

: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. NW (Talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

=[[Fabio Cardone]]=

:{{la|Fabio Cardone}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Fabio Cardone}})

Repeatedly prodded, bio of physicist with non-standard theories. Nominating to get representative opinions and community decision. My own view is Uncertain at this time. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:Delete I was latest prodder and was unaware of previous prods. My concerns are not with non-standard theories at this time but rather that this bio does not meet WP:PROF criteria. Furthermore article seems to be created by Fabio Cardone himself which brings up WP:COI issues. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:Delete. I found it in articles needing wikifying. After consultation I think he doesn't meet WP:PROF. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

:Weak Delete Article is basically a not too impressive CV, indicating that he is not notable, at least not under WP:PROF. So, unless proof is presented that Cardone's row with Santilli generated significant press coverage, I'd say delete. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

:Weak delete as TimRias. He wrote books, which usually makes me lean towards keep, but they don't look notable at all. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

:Delete no sufficient to meet notability criteria. Jim Carmel (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. A search on HPoP for “Fabio Cardone” returns a total of 123 citations, and an h-index of 7. The most cited pub has 14 citations. Some of the pubs are in very good journals, but the subject seems to still fall short of WP:PROF criterion #1. I don’t see evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria. The awards from the International Biographical Centre and American Biographical Institute are commendable, but fall short of meeting WP:PROF criterion #2.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. There's a little media support (e.g. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/24/physicalsciences.highereducation here]) for his claim that Enrico Fermi should have shared his credit with a janitor, but it seems to mention him only trivially. There's no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. And as for the American Biographical Institute and the International Biographical Centre, check our articles on them: they're scammers who provide fancy-sounding awards for money. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess those awards are not so commendable after all ;-)--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:12, 28 September 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.