Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Tarantino

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarmaॐ 02:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Tarantino

Delete Relevant? Necessary? Possibly vanity. mu5ti/talk 02:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've tagged it for speedy as vanity. --TM ^(talk) 03:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And I've untagged it. A rector is "the highest academic official of a university in many countries". Definitely an assertion of notability. No vote. android79 03:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - Not a vanity page--the philosopher Giuseppe Tarantino is long dead (there's also a violinist with that name, even longer dead). I've rewritten it as a stub, based on this publisher webpage: [1]. Chick Bowen 03:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. --TM ^(talk) 04:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. – AxSkov (☏) 05:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by Chick Bowen and thanks to him or her for the rewrite. Notable academic and philosopher. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I am questioning whether the name of the university in the article isn't a conflation of two institutions of higher education in Pisa, the University of Pisa and the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Uppland 19:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite right: he was apparently at U. di Pisa. I've made the correction. Chick Bowen 02:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten by Chick Bowen. Hall Monitor 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above, although I am not sure I agree with android's assertion that holding the post of rector at a University is on its own sufficient grounds for inclusion. Dottore So 15:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I never made any such assertion. I said the article makes an assertion of notability, and therefore does not qualify for speedy under CSD A7. Whether holding such a post is sufficient grounds for inclusion is something I have no opinion on, and I have not voted here because of that. android79 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.