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. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Vendramini[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only independent ref with in depth coverage is The Age which pretty much completely rebuts the articles' claims for scientific advance. Fails WP:PROF, WP:FILMMAKER and WP:AUTHOR. Google scholar reference counts are very low. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, and WP:FILMMAKER, so it really comes down to WP:GNG. I can't find much that would seem to fulfill this criteria. Stuart cites the Age article, but I'm pretty sure it's not enough to establish notability. Other news sources I've found are basically routine coverage ("amateur biologist has a theory" etc etc) rather than anything close to biographical coverage. Most other sources I've found are blogs discussing what looks like a bit of a WP:FRINGE theory (I could be wrong on that -- a biologist or anthropologist would know better). The article is in a completely unacceptable state and the references are mainly primary; it definitely violates WP:SECONDARY. -- Shudde ^talk 08:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails specific guidelines for occupations as well as WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (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.