Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunello Rosa (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brunello Rosa

AfDs for this article:

[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)

This article appears to fail WP:GNG and it was deleted a few years back for that reason. The Bloomberg article seems to be the only reliable source with significant coverage but the others quote him briefly or are non-reliable sources. I did a Google search but couldn't find anything additional to support notability. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Italy, and England. Citrivescence (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has held some moderately high positions but seems barely to have been noted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. fails NPROF as well as GNG from what I can see. Being quoted a few times is not enough for GNG. Also, nothing has changed since 2019 when this was last discussed. --hroest 20:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost all citations are mentions or profiles so there is no deep coverage. A couple are behind paywalls, so I could not read them, but even if these were good, they may not be enough. Royal88888 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except for the fact that the sources are now listed as footnotes, my deletion rationale from the first AfD still applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 8 December 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.