Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Catanzaro

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Catanzaro[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)

Clear COI in editing since creation (and the original creation looks like it may either have had a COI also, is a sock, a UPE, or some combination of the three). A comment at WT:MATH#Daniele Catanzaro notable? seems to indicate that this topic may not be notable under WP:NPROF. Izno (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and per comments in the WT:MATH discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations too low in a high-citation field to pass WP:PROF#C1, and the self-promotion makes me unwilling to look for excuses to keep it anyway despite that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It’s exactly as David Eppstein put it. Self promotion is always a red flag. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations not enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The "sources" are all peer-reviewed papers he authored. We'd need more than that to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable, self-promotional. --Lockley (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough citations for WP:NPROF C1, no other indication of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination, seems to fail WP:NPROF. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kj cheetham, thanks for your message. I am a neophyte on Wikipedia so the links above definitely prove useful to clarify some mechanisms at its core. I started to make contributions to some wiki pages because they contained an avalanche of wrong scientific information. I was surprised though to see that my edits were removed by random users (Spellsgood and Mvolz just to mention a few). Hence, as one of (the very few) academics working on a niche domain of phylogenetics, I decided to create first a wiki page to specify who I am and on which topic I work for, and then I modified again the above mentioned wiki pages. The wiki page Daniele Catanzaro was however marked as COI by Mvolz and Spellsgood and from there degenerated up to reaching the ridiculous “self-promoting” statement. Under this condition I do not feel like contributing anymore. Good work to the wikipedia community DC 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniele.Catanzaro (talk • contribs)

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable fails passing WP:NPROF. Dtt1^Talk 13:13, 14 July 2020 (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.