Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attilio Meucci

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 no consensus. As this is primarily due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attilio Meucci[edit]

[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)

The 2012 WSJ article cited appears to be the only coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The requirements of WP:BIO are therefore not satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject does appear to have a pretty substantial list of academic publications, although I'm not qualified to say whether that means he meets notability from that perspective.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's this paragraph talking about him in a textbook [1]. This article might have a chance, let me keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is his profile [2], over 800 citations since 2018, I think that passes ACADEMIC. Keep if that is him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When this came up on my radar, I had found the Google Scholar and, based on that and suspecting he might meet WP:NACADEMIC, didn't file an AfD. Odds are cites will need made to demonstrate NACADEMIC criterion 1, but that should be trivial to someone who knows how to do so. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think he may pass WP:PROF#C1 but the article is so badly sourced (not even having primary sources for basic career milestones, almost a BLPPROD) that I can't in good conscience argue for a keep in its current state. If someone takes enough interest to clean it up and properly source it, then it can be kept. Otherwise maybe it is a case for WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just passing through and wanted to link to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_194#Attilio_Meucci_and_ARPM and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jewzip due to concerns about likely considerable COI and SPA/sockpuppetry related to this article. Spencer^T•C 17:41, 2 February 2023 (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.