Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rustici

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rustici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject is a minor academic, does not pass WP:Academics. Being an advisor to Ben Carson does not mitigate this, as the subject also doesn't pass WP:Politician or WP:GNG. Ghits [1] are minimal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has 2 major media sources mentioning the subject. How does that not meet GNG? Admittedly the article is short, but how does it harm the encyclopedia? I think that the real issue is that the primary author is accused of being a paid editor. The article in and of itself appears to be fine. Endercase (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue of whether a paid editor created the article had nothing to do with my nomination whatsoever -- I've substantially improved other articles by the same editor. It's simply the case that the subject is not notable, any way you look at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor academic. Also, how is being a "senior economics advisor" to one of 18 failed presidential candidate two years ago supposed to be a mark of notability? --Calton | Talk 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence subject satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meets neither NAUTHOR or WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG - doesn't meet GNG, NAUTHOR or PROF. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not found. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; we almost always delete articles about assistant and associate professors. This person has had little impact on his field so far. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NACADEMIC and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Passes neither WP:POLITICIAN for his candidate-advisor work nor WP:PROF for his scholarly contributions to economics. I note, for instance, that he is not listed by RePEc as being among the top economists in his state or country, and Google scholar finds only five publications, none with more than single-digit citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:30, 18 April 2017 (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.