This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Louisiana. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Louisiana|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Louisiana. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Louisiana
- Joseph A. Bonanno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
IP user ~2026-35132-87 gave the following explanation at WT:AFD:
[Joseph A. Bonanno's] entire description is, an American Optometrist. This man is not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page. This man is just a regular optometrist with nothing notable mentioned in the whole article. The site also lacks secondary sources
FaviFake (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- comment - I am assuming that the IP nominator did not due any WP:BEFORE research, since a quick search reveals what Nat Gertler detailed. Bonnano was a dean of a major public university (IU)'s optometry school for 13 years, which itself doesn't qualify under WP:NACADEMIC, although it points to him being more than your friendly optometrist down the road. Yojo98 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete He wouldn’t meet WP:GNG guidelines and the article as written fails to prove academic guidelines. Perhaps with more sources and citations it could be improved, but as it is now written, I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as Google Scholar here shows high cites for some of his works including 545 cites for a solo work so that he passes WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1 as explained in specific criteria notes, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete This article looks like a resume. It doesn’t have the significant independent coverage needed for an article page as per WP:GNG. Staticspector (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep -- while not meeting the WP:GNG, it looks to meet the WP:SNG of WP:NACADEMIC, with his h-index at Google Scholar being 41. (The weak aspect comes from some uncertainty by Optometry specifically; 41 is a high h-index, but there are some fields that naturally generate a lot more citations than others. I can't speak with confidence about how good 41 is within the optometric field.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- I should note that I've added to the article an external link to his Google Scholar page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'm inclined to agree with Atlantic306's analysis. Athel cb (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Meets NACADEMIC per Atlantic306. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per not meeting WP:GNG. Wikipedia articles are written based on non-trivial coverage in independent sources, without them an article can't be expanded beyond a short prose resume. There are more appropriate places to host resumes. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Similar to others above, he appears to pass WP:NPROF based upon his citations. That makes WP:GNG irrelevant, so we can effectively strike out all the delete votes above. I did a search for comparable academics such as Nicola Logan, Michael Kalloniatis and Grayson W Armstrong (excluding big names such as Jay Duker). His citation record seems to be strong enough compared to others. N.B., the fellow election does not seem to be very notable, and being a society member is irrelevant.Ldm1954 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- I will note that the subject is the #1 most cited in the category of "transport physiology" and #2 in "corneal physiology", those are both very short lists (#2 puts him in last place); there are hundreds of people in the general "opthalmology" category with more. And none of the category examples you compare him to have pages at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
