Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Forti

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. Lourdes 16:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Forti[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)

I do not believe this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:PROF. He is currently a postdoctoral researcher according to this site. The article was written by a single purpose account by user Asqueladd who also wrote the equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth. I am not a "single purpose account" (at least not more than you, if we need to set a standard). Forti seems to be a postdoctoral researcher, yes. And as far as the entry is concerned all content is sourced by reliable independent sources (book reviews and an article about standout Italian scholars in Catalonia in La Vanguardia). Second source passes WP:GNG "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (it is one of three)". And addressing WP:PROF, I read the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable" I go back to pointing out how the entire entry is sourced by reliable independent sources (not academic CVs, but actual reviews).--Asqueladd (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake about the single purpose account (stopped for lunch and did not recheck) but I did see you were a regular contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia. So he has written one book and been the editor of another. Can you find more reviews or significant coverage of him in reliable, independent sources? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current content is essentially what I've found about the subject in reliable third party sources (that is, adhering to WP:GNG/WP:BIO). Surely we may expand the content about his main work, and we can add the "He contributes as political commentator to CTXT,^{<ref>CTXT</ref>} the Italian edition of Rolling Stone^{<ref>Rolling Stone</ref>} and blah-blah-blah...", but in the first case we would unbalance the entry straying away from topic and in the later case that synthy&OR-ish effort would not improve the entry until we get the independent sources pointing that out in detail, right? I don't think there is an alternative "holistic" biographical account on the subject in reliable third party sources other than La Vanguardia article out there, if that is what you are asking. I'll check later about it as well as about more reviews, though.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DElete TOOSOON. So far he has produced a doctoral thesis, produced a book (perhaps based on it) and edited one book. Whether he is a post-doc researcher or a lecturer, be has not yet done enough to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant at the academic level. Unnecessary article. --85.85.160.92 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Postdocs are rarely notable, and this particular individual does not seem to be notable as of yet - not coming close to PROF or AUTHOR - and not passing GNG either. Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2018 (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.