Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luciano Canepari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. Several of the deletion arguments appear to me spurious; original research does not apply here, and there is no necessity for biographical articles for academics. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luciano Canepari

Luciano Canepari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete as per WP:OR and WP:BIO. It seems that people are getting interested to promote their research on WP which is really unfortunate. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do intend promote my teacher'e research and it isn't unfortunate at all, since it only let ideas to travel faster; this is a particular subject where instead too often news travels very slowly. -- gfl87

(Note: e-mail address removed) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for your comment. With due respect to your work, I have to say that Wikipedia doesn't support Original Research and such article is considered as candidate for deletion. Please have a look at this page - WP:OR. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I've added a bibliography section, but I'm not finding a lot of notability in a gsearch. However, this may be something that needs references from linguistic journals that aren't online. (And I'm not a big fan of AfDs started 3 minutes after creation of the article. Seems kind of bitey). --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comments 1) The article was created at 14:15 [1] so this AfD took some 45 minutes to be created. 2) It was originaly put as a speedy A7 which I declined. Pedro :  Chat  15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies -- I only looked at the history for this capitalization, not for any other capitalizations.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Well it's a clear case of WP:OR violation and creator himself also confessed. And there is no harm to go for AfD if it really fails on one of the main three core policies. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment on comment: actually the creator did not "confess" that this was original research; he stated that his aim was to make someone else's research more readily available. This is the very opposite of WP:OR. Since we're dealing with an academic WP:PROF is the touchstone, not WP:BIO. These two facts mean that the initial rationale given for deletion ("per WP:OR and WP:BIO") is not really applicable, but we might still consider whether the few secondary discussions of this research that have been found indicate that this professor is notable under WP:PROF. On that point I am still not offering an opinion, but I am increasingly concerned at the looseness with which short-hand references to quite detailed policies and guidelines are bandied about in AfD discussions. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep One of Canepari's books (Manuale di fonetica) was reviewed in the journal Language (published by the Linguistic Society of America) this month. It's true that canIPA isn't used much except by Canepari and his students, but he certainly isn't considered a crank. The style of the article needs to be improved (to be more grammatical and less uniformly laudatory), but I think Canepari and his work are notable enough to be worth mentioning. --Śiva (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And some of his earlier books were reviewed in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association in the late 1980s or early 1990s. There were some negative comments toward his phonetic notation (e.g., too many hard-to-distinguish-between consonant symbols) and some positive ones (e.g., more detailed vowel transcription is useful). – ishwar  (speak) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment there's fairly detailed discussion of his system in Warren Shibles, "A Comparative Phonetics of Italian: toward a Standard IPA Transcription", Italica 71:4 (1994), pp. 548-566. (on jstor). I wouldn't feel competent to suggest whether or not this significantly adds to his notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; his book might be reviewed, but for a WP:BIO article, we need biographical sources, sources about him. This article doesn't even have the obligatory four newspaper mentions and self-written biography that most of these have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
comment: still not giving an opinion on this article, but just commenting that I think with an academic it would be more useful to concentrating on WP:PROF than on WP:BIO. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about a person, so we have to worry about WP:BIO. It's not like someone being a professor gives us carte blanche to forget about the libel laws and the rules about sourcing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
comment: I only started the article beginning from what someone wrote in the respective italian article; then the actual content is very very poor: how can you find it laudatory? If you can understand Italian, let's read the italian article: that could be laudatory... Any attempt to correct my English grammar is very kindly accepted!

Moreover if you think it's better to get it as a WP:PROF than as a WP:BIO, let's change the cathegory. I don't think to delete the article is a good idea, since it somehow gives some more about the subject & allows everyone to discover something new otherwise a little more difficult to find. I think it's a question of cultural openness. Indeed if someone wants to delete and redo better that page, feel free to do. -- Gfl87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfl87 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Whatever we may want to call it we need some sources, some indication of notability. The review of the book seems highly relevant, and I just identified others of this & another book via WorldCat, though I havent looked to read them: Phonetica, 61, no. 1 (2004): 59-61, Language problems & language planning. 30, no. 2, (2006): 193. That's at least minimal notability. His books are fairly frequently held in the US for works of this nature (some in about 50 US libraries); the bibliography is incomplete--I added some but not all--most of the work was published in both English and Italian. Can anyone find if his works are widely used in courses? that's undoubted notability per WP:PROF. I added some bio details from the itWP--they would have been missed in copying the source code, since they are actually in a very clever template. DGG (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per DGG's demonstration that subject meets WP:PROF, however minimally. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per DGG. John254 00:35, 3 February 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.