Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Cazzolla Gatti

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. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Cazzolla Gatti

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roberto Cazzolla Gatti

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As mentioned in the talk (also some time ago by other users) it is a clearly self-promotional autobiography. Even the list of sources posted in the talk (probably by the subject himself) is made just of press releases and some interviews. I went through all the links and no source seems to attest that the guy is particularly notable in his field. He is a researcher with a good number of papers but to consider him particularly notable we should agree that almost every ecology professor with enough years of experience is particularly notable. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he is notable, this article would need to be rewritten from scratch to focus on what reliable independent sources have said. Right now half of it is unsourced and the other half is a laundry list of his publications. Jfire (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS cites, although in a highly cited field. However, the BLP is over-weight for the importance of its subject and should be culled by 75%. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep.I have noticed that those who claim for a deletion of the page may be interested (with a conflict) in safeguarding the self-interest (an Italian competing institution) and companies that are mentioned in the voice and are criticized by this author's research studies (such as palm oil industry and deforestation-linked companies). 12:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.184.31 (talk)

Can you kindly provide any proof of this statement? Thanks! Rupertsciamenna (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper that is moderately cited does not convince me of much... After discounting such papers, it definitely looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2013 PhD and current associate professor. A brief mention in a listicle does not get to GNG. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment made by a professor of a minor Slovenian university that has 1/3 of the publications and the H-index (and less than 2000 citations!) compared to the author that he propose to delete looks frankly ridiculous. 137.204.150.11 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is ever an article about me, then you can feel free to nominate it for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep away from ad hominem attacks, anonymous editor. Qflib (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jfire autobiography needs to be rewritten—I have no prejudice against a recreation of this article by a neutral editor. And I would like to add that I am a person with zero publications and zero citations. RetroCosmos ^talk 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Very few secondary sources can be found, and most of his citations are not from articles where he is first author. No significant awards either, despite the long list in the page. --Broc (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2024 (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.