Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Lazzarini

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. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lazzarini[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. I could find no significant RS coverage of the subject and his publications have few citations. Jbh ^Talk 04:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Consensus is clear. No need to keep this open. Jbh ^Talk 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page, it appears that the work with Csound and synthesis is significant enough. There were some links broken in different places on wikipedia, I realised later that the page was there but was deleted.Roetfuss (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article's not great, but the dude invented MFM synthesis! - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something where sources discuss him rather than the technique. I would be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if some are found. Also, his most highly cited work has 38 citations so how big a deal is it? His work is outside my area of expertise and I'm willing to reassess. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible a redirect to csound is appropriate ... but I'll have a good look - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

38 citations of a single article in a niche area such as sound synthesis is not too bad. The MIT Press book appears to be well appreciated. Just giving some reasons why I even bothered.Roetfuss (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a cursory look at the sources more than demonstrates that this person fulfills the notability criteria for academics. giso6150 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep -- the google books search (link) shows that he co-authored The Audio Programming Book and that his works are being cited by others. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 10 October 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.