User talk:John Vandenberg/sandbox

I've placed the stub at Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina". LoL, what a name.

The group are cited in ATLA, though Adamantius is not ... as yet. Adamantius does fall within one of ATLA's three criteria for "peer reviewed".

There's no doubt that the group are scholarly, reliable and notable, nor is there any doubt that independent sources review and comment on their work. They are also cited at Italian Wikipedia.

Over time, there will be more citations at it:WP and most definitely here at en:WP. As for how much background information we can glean, the sky's the limit. Several contributors to the journal will attract festschriften, which nearly always contain biographical information. Also some must have biographical information published regarding them already. There's quite a few big fish in this small Italian pond.

Laughably, because the deletion discussion was based on virtually no information except Wikipedia policy, hence Wiki-lawyerism without serious attention to the intention and spirit of policy (with two notable exceptions) ... laughably, an article on the group is more sustainable because it could draw from Adamantius as a reliable source of information regarding dry historical information about the group.

It really doesn't matter whether Adamantius is documented in a free standing article or as a subsection of an article on the group. That no-one thought to propose this solution is yet another deficiency of the discussion.

Hmmm, just what proportion of Wikipedians are genuinely interested in accumulating information? What on Earth are others interested in doing here? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)