Talk:Luigi Arialdo Radicati di Brozolo

Autobiography suspect
Dear, I noticed that you (probably automatically) sent me a message saying that this page is an autobiography. This is actually not the case, in fact my objective was only to translate an already existing page on the Italian wikipedia (not created by me, although I improved it a little bit). The subject is an important Italian physicist, who in any case is now dead, so this fact eliminates completely the doubt on this being an autobiography.

Thanks LuigiRadicati (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @LuigiRadicati - This has not been done automatically. Your username clearly implies a very close connection to the subject. Please make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response @CommanderWaterford. I created this username because I'm interested in the subject, but I'm not him, nor related to him. I hope I did not violate any rule. If so I did not intend to. Anyway this is just a translation, not new content. I thought it could be useful to have this page in english since professor Radicati spent a considerable part of his career in UK and America, so it might be interesting for english speakers. The purpose of this page is just describing the career of a scientist, who has been relevant in his field and all the info are well confirmed from many sources. I have no interest on this content and I'm not representing the interest of professor Radicati (who is dead and his work is well consolidated in the past) LuigiRadicati (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the COI tag based on your assurances and WP:AGF, and I hope I won't be proven wrong in doing so, but I can certainly see why it was placed. If you're not the person, or related to them, then why pick that name? Any number of possible usernames that aren't confusing... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability
I've accepted this at AfC based on presumed notability, judging by the various chairs, awards, etc., but TBH the article could do with more support in that area, hence I've tagged it with refimprove. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)