Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. being in the news for a current event does not establish academic notability. Nothing indicates Orsini achives that through any other channels Star   Mississippi  01:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominating on behalf of 85.211.232.197. IP placed deletion template on page using edit summary of "this Italian professor has no biography on the Italian wikipedia and he is not a relevant voice to be added". I waited a while to see if they would open a discussion, but they didn't, so I offered on their talk page to do it for them and they asked if I could.

I don't have an opinion either way on if it should or shouldn't be deleted, but for a bit of background, this article was deleted back in 2016 due to a lack of notability, though things may (or may not) have changed recently. He has made some, er, "controversial" comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and has got some attention for those, but I'm not too sure that it allows him to get past WP:BLP1E, (although, on the other hand, there has been quite a bit of attention on him).

Again, I don't have an opinion on it either way, so my part of the nomination shouldn't be taken as a delete. (Note: The multiple speedy deletions of this article under the local equivalents of G2,G3, G11 and G12 from it.wiki seems to have got some media attention.) Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Italy, Russia,  and Ukraine. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: He is notable. Even years ago, checking the sources, you could have noticed how his book tranlsated into English was a cited on journals, his professional career increased even further. When you manage even before reaching notability for more "pop" reasons to be cited in sources in at least three languages (Italian, English, German), there is not really a lot of doubt. The spike of attention now is an additional coating on the cake of notability, with more sources in English, Russian and Italian. All international or national news publishers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree. there are many books on left-wing terrorism in Italy after WWII, and Orsini's has not made a particular impact. He is a mid-career academic, with reasonable credentials, but certainly not somebody who would attract any wide interest, especially from non-Italian readers. His only claim to fame is his stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and that does not justify an article on him. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * it's in the sources in the page... you can't disagree with sources, not very wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, I can add more sources about the media attention of the deletion on itwiki. I usually don't in these cases because it make itwikipedia sometimes look bad, but if you want more proof of generic notability we can put it there, it just reinforces the relevance. He did not need that, he is known internationally for his work (the book about Red Brigades) and the issue with Rai3 and his contract. That's already enough by enwiki standard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Alexmar, just to clarify, the deletions on it.wiki were speedy deletions as it had met the local equivalents of speedy deletion criteria G2, G3, G11 or G12 (it seems to have been deleted at least 6 or 7 times, probably more), not because of a lack of notability, like when it was deleted from here in 2016. Can you possibly give some sources that help establish notability? I'm not questioning their existence, but it would help the discussion move toward a conclusion if you provided some. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 09:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, using deletions on another wiki as a proof is methodologically wrong if the core aspect treated there are not sources and the topic. So maybe you should point out first why citing deletions for formal reasons is important in a discussion based on content. Also, it's not correct to ask me for sources of notability like the ones in the articles are not enough, this is not something who should be done implicitly or under the umbrella of a neutrality that based on the fact you add the reasons for the deletions and not the IP, it's not strong here.
 * First, write down precisely why you (not the IP) think that the current academic and general sources in so many languages over the years are not enough. Not as general concept but as your personal position. At this point, I can add you even more sources about the aspects in the artice and - why not- also about the deletion procedures. Of course, when you are cited everywhere on national newspapers when you are deleted, that means you are notable. Which means that the correct thing to do for a Wiki is to write the article. Even if the wiki has a high standard, with these academic sources it's almost impossible to deny notability. If you do so, you won't have 6-7 formal deletions in a row, every expert user knows that. Even the general public nowadays knows that, like those who write to me in private asking to why I am not writing this article, which at a certain point I do.
 * So please write down, why do you think I should add also 4-5 national national sources about itwikipedia that proves Orsini is notable also because of this aspect. Or just add them yourself, you already add sentences to the article--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexmar983: Sorry, my comment seems to have been a bit open to interpretation, and you seem to have interpreted it differently to how I intended it.
 * For goodness sake, I try to help an IP to do something that they were having trouble doing on their own, and now here we are.
 * You've somewhat put me in a position where it is best to make my actual position on this debate clear.
 * Keep: I suppose that might surprise you? Anyway, next time I see an IP mess up when trying to nominate a page for deletion in good faith, I'll just ignore it. This has been far more trouble than it's worth. I'll steer clear of that page too in future. I'm also not going to contribute any further to this discussion here, as this can only go downhill. Good day/evening/afternoon/night/morning. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it might not be clear because it's not in the article yet ("yet" because it's written so far on weak sources, or they are not accessible and it's just in some google previews, or it can be inferred directly from his statements) but just so you get a more in-depth context besides some citations usually extrapolated by media: Orsini comes from the left, not the right. He showed in the past for example a quite strong pro-immigration stance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That Orsini comes from the left does not seem relevant to this discussion. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding strong sentence hinting in one direction without stressing this concept, means it's up to me to balance the article now. So it's relevant, beacuse unbalanced articles have bigger chance to be deleted.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment by author: BTW, should we also cat=S (Society topics) to this deletion procedure? If I have to enlarge the article citing also the impact on national newspapers of Orsini's article deletion that means it's a social topic as well, including all the international debate about the position of Italian pundits on this geopolitical topic (see sources). This kinda goes beyond the person. Also the themes addressed by him are in the field of sociology, they are used as sources even here for these topic, editors who write about these issues might have a qualified opinion why the author of the sources needs a contextualization. So cat=S is a correct tag as well --Alexmar983 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * [Keep]: NO, don't delete Professor Alessandro Orsini's page, please. (not signed comment by IP 80.183.58.139, move here)


 * Comment by author: I point out that sourced information is now removed from the article with undo. This sort of behaviour is the kind that should not occur during a deletion procedure. It would have been better to discuss in the talk page, than start a AfD. I am not very comfortable here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Before the Russian invasion in Ukraine, Alessandro Orsini was an unknown professor whose main field of research was the left-wing terrorism in Italy. As stated by someone else already, his works have not made a particular impact on the public debate in Italy or in the academic world on this topic. He became known to the Italian public for his controversial statements on the war in Ukraine and other recent statement (like Hitler didn't want to start the II world world and children were happy during the fascism period).
 * Also this page cannot be used as Alessandro Orsini CV. Also I find quite bizarre that Alexmar983 wrote that Orsini 'became one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows', considering he started to appear frequently as a guest in different Italian talk-shows just two months ago.
 * The page in the Italian wikipedia of Alessandro Orsini is still a draft. If the Wikipedia English version will be kept, this page will be added mainly for the controversial statements of the person rather than for his academic contributions. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote something that is in the source: "è diventato uno dei volti più noti dei talk show italiani che approfondiscono il tema del conflitto." Not bizzare at all, and indirectly proven by the fuzz of the deletion of its page. And tha academic contribution were enough in 2021 to prove relevance in the field. See the discussion about the book and the source in German of 2019.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article says "Orsini has become one of the best-known faces in the Italian talk shows covering the topic of the conflict (war in Ukraine)" and instead you wrote "has become one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows'. Plus there is a difference between an article from a newspaper and a page in an online encyclopedia like wikipedia. This sentence will be valid after the end of the conflict when Orsini will not be invited anymore as a guest?
 * Anyway, I want to stress again that Alessandro Orsini was an unknown academic, before the war in Ukraine and his controversial statements. His published works in his specialised field never made an impact and this page cannot be used as a personal CV. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * volto noto and Il più discusso ospite di talk show televisivi del momento... you have to express the concept somehow that he is really known. People recognizes his face, which is what notability means. So don't undo in these cases. Discuss, ask for more sources, put a template in ns0. It's clear that you will keep inserting or make me insert more and more sources that will prove the notability about this aspect (which is already enough per se to keep, per notability guidelines). Which proves to me that we should have not helped an IP to open an AfD, but teach them to discuss in the talk page about the content first. I will add both sources in the next days, please agree on a formulation that will fit in your opinion at the end of the conflict. it has been two months that newspaper about every single sentence he days, so...
 * Anyway, you already stressed your position. I can't do anything that reminding you the sources, start on those not on what you think in general. Also, if you think this page has a CV style, that should have been a suggestion for the motivation of the AfD, although it can be disproved quite easily. It does not focus very much on the publications and academic positions.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't use the source correctly, citing the sentence partially. And the new links you have mentioned now, they say respectively 'known face' and 'the most discussed talk show guest at the moment'. You should also add the English translation (for non Italian speakers), if you write something in a language different than English.
 * Regarding the source, it is fair to use it correctly and not reporting the sentence omitting some parts that can change the meaning of it.
 * Also as an IP, I have the right to contribute to Wikipedia and to discuss regarding an AfD.
 * This biography page of Alessandro Orsini has not been approved on the Wikipedia Italian, where actually the person is known. Exactly why should this page have relevance in the English version?
 * I also find contradictory that you say that this page has not been built as a CV, when creating and writing this page you have added even the personal Facebook page of Alessandro Orsini. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I keep thinking that this a discussion related to editing so should have been started teaching you how to edit and discuss in the talk page of the article before opening AfD. Especially this strange contradictory AfD where somebody might keep it but open it to express what you might think, which now seems something else. You needed to gain more expertise, maybe opening a AfD later.
 * Having a FB link that does not prove the article is a CV, and you are really exaggerating this aspect. it was evaluated by many users on the way before you in many weeks and nobody defined it a CV, because it is not. Also you don't know yet how to read the history of a page. I did not add any FB link, I am very tolerant considering nowadays social media are closer to a personal webpage, so would be a Twitter profile. I add these things all the time also on Wikidata, but I usually don't care about those here.
 * Beware: someone else would have started to point out that accusing me of putting something I did not put is a bad-faith attempt. You are just not expert, which is a shame and it would have been better, since this is probably notable, to have this discussion in the talk page so you could have been trained.
 * Also, you can be an IP or a user, but you lacked some literacy. I just hoped you could become a more trained editor before this opening. It's not wise to put a newbie with starting editing skills and limited knowledge of guidelines in AfD, one of the most time-consuming process sometimes. For examples, in theory now we have to focus on the content in ns0 and here, and this is not good for the article. Normally, poorly-edited deletion attempts can be removed and not-so-expert users can learn a little bit more. Here I have to train you in good faith but since you think this is confrontational, you accuse me. That's not fair.
 * Normal users can use on-line translators, it's really simple. I prefer everybody to do that themselves so they can use a third party service and it is not up to me because someone will accuse me of not translating correctly (I know...). I found bizarre to be lectured about sources since I am the one who had to move the discussion on them, you were more inclined to very generic statements. Another source: il professore più controverso della Tv... you can't be the most controversial if people do not compare to all the other ones, so it means you are known. In this case they made a specific dedicated article just about him.
 * This "unknown academic" was known on his own. I was improving that part before we ended up here. But also "pop" notability is ok, they are all some notability. However, a contradiction in this discussion is that according to you, dear British IP friend, his presence on the media is transient and this is an encylopedia, so we should not stress too much about how notable he is because of mass media and disregard this part. Yet, if a newspaper extrapolates a quote from the guy and makes an article about it, which is occurring a lot recently, that quote is the most transient thing you can find as a source, but it can be stuffed in the article according to you, and you do so. So in other words, this adding of sources implicitly recognized the notabilty because of press coverage. So... why are we here debating about the opposite? You should not add more of those, you should remove them all. Do you see this?
 * In the end, I am a decent person, with a name and a surname, who edited an article of a notable figure based on old and new and academic and general sources, in many languages. I don't want to spend a week to balance a cherry-picking of sources instead of adding more academic ones, which is what I would have done probably.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is quite distasteful that you checked my IP to see where I have been writing from and you have addressed me as 'dear British friend' (ironically). You have already stressed enough how illiterate I am on Wikipedia! Ok, that's fine!
 * But even adding irrelevant award (Cimitile Prize without even a website page related to the award) to the page of Alessandro Orsini, it doesn't change the fact this person has become known only for his recent controversial statements and not for his academic contribution! 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It was kinda necessary in view of a long and complex AfD, see comment here. It's more distasteful IMHO to constantly look for accusations, but personal tastes I guess.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete:Alessandro Orsini does not fulfil any of the notability criteria for academics, as defined by Wikipedia. He has become known to the public not through his academic achievements, but through his statements in talk-shows, that do not represent independent reliable secondary sources. His research has not had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He has won no major international prizes, etc. Essentially he has not fulfilled ANY of the notability criteria for academics. He is not even widely cited, his h-index is very low.Morningbastet (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * he was known to the public also because of a scandal about promotions, this is part that could have been enlarged. That's also why there is an article in German citing him as relevant in his field, for example. Than he became known for the end of the contract in late February, than for the deletion of the article on itWikipedia, than again for every minor statements he says as it is now. But you can combine the last three as a unicum (a big one). Also the criteria are respected in points 1 (significant impact is the book about Red Brigades), 2 (the awards are national), maybe 5 (he was chair of a specific institution of the University until yesterday, that basically existed because of him). That's why I never enlarged with pleasure the "controversies" part, it's transient and people overthink about it ignoring the rest. Although all combined, the stuff of the press coverage kinda prove also point 7. At this point someone will criticize all of them, but it's more fair than citing generically they are not met at all. You need to demolish all four of them to prove he is not relevant as an academic. Which you will maybe, but I have met researchers here with much limited impact. That's why years ago the page was almost kept.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexmar983 Being "known to the public because of a scandal about promotions" has nothing to do with academic notability. There need to be multiple independent articles from independent sources to support academic notability. Luiss University does not have a high ranking internationally, and Associate professorship is far from being equal with fame, in the absence of multiple independent sources of some weight that state his notability in the field. This article is likely a promotion/advertisement. The chair at Luiss was terminated and Luiss issued a statement distancing itself from the controversial statements of Orsini. Notability, not lack of notability, must be proven. This article only reports the controversies, which did not occur in an academic setting, but in Italian TV talk shows that have nothing to do with academic settings. The Orsini biographical article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, this means that for a researcher that has done essentially all of his training in Italy, he does not even merit notability in Italy. In the anglophone world he is even less well known. Several of the sources cited in the article have not been validated as independent reliable sources with a good reputation for soundness and journalistic rigorous. At most, the name of Orsini could marginally deserve to be mentioned only in an article listing controversies on Italian TV talk shows, about the different proposals of responses/policies concerning the war waged by Russia on Ukraine. But he certainly not a notable academic, he simply does not fulfil the criteria.Morningbastet (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am already out of this so don't ping me. BTW "only the controversies" is too much. Probably when I was looking for academic sources and inserting them I was aomewhere else... Seen many times: someone stuff the articles with controversies and later someone else act as if it's the only thing there. And than if you talk about open aspect (academic relevance), the subject shift on the "controversies", and vice versa. Very unhealthy.
 * Also, the part about deletion on itwiki is wrong. Even national newspaper reported it as done for formal reasons not related to the content because many many people found it quite bizarre. Besides that, using itwikipedia, which has higher threshold of notability and is usually criticized for that, to detect relevance in Italy is poor method (not the first time these things occur, may I remind you the Aranzulla case?). Using a wiki in general is poor method, such a disregard for sources. May I remind you also that we come from a 10-years scandal of hr.wiki about political aspects? That's why it would be wise to stick to the sources.
 * I wonder how many people will reappear in this AfD after many weeks or months of inactivity just to state such "stretched" interpretations of reality. How many of them will be anonymous? I won't know, I am out of here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also you should stop writing that Wikipedia Italian has blocked the publication of Alessandro Orsini page. Here some reliable news sources that prove your claims are untrue:
 * https://www.tpi.it/cronaca/wikipedia-cancella-biografia-professor-orsini-perche-non-ha-senso-parlare-censura-20220319881084/
 * https://www.bufale.net/scompare-alessandro-orsini-da-wikipedia-il-motivo-ufficiale-non-compreso-dai-complottisti/ 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about? He never said anything that is false. Alexmar983 correctly claimed that it.wikipedia is controversial related to notability and should never be used to assess it. For example, may I remind you recently the deletion of Vladimiro Giacché's article?
 * Also, you pointed out with third-party sources that even the very selective Italian wikipedia could not disproof the notability of Orsini.
 * —193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, I checked IP because, as I predicted, IPs were going to be actively involved here (nobody wants to use their name of such public figure) and it's the only way to get an idea if you are no check-user to know who's who because they might change. For example 193.207.xx probably added a source in the article, but with a different ending (193.207.210.18). Interestingly, it looks like the two IPs who were against the notability are from UK and Sweden, all the other pro-keep IPs seem to be Italian. There might be exceptions later, just a curious fact.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: As pointed out by Morningbastet, Orsini does not fulfill any of Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. I've been hesitating for a couple of days because he has arguably been "notable" in Italian mass media (mainly talk shows and tabloids) since March, for expressing views on topics outside of his academic specialty. But this seems to be a fallacy known as WP:ITSINTHENEWS. The only way I see him still being of public interest half a year from now is if he pivots from academia to politics (there is talk of that), in which case a Wikipedia page might be warranted under "politician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.195.49.49 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. Something that is temporarily in the news is not worth to be in an encyclopedia, but this is not the case. There was in-depth coverage, and an evolution of sources. this one point out for example clearly not only that Orsini is worth a dedicated article on a national magazine but also states the Orsini was already on TV before 2022. this other source involving Orsini dates back to 2007. It's a little bit nuanced than an explosion of interest after February. That's why I was very skeptical about enlarging the 2022 section and I think I was right.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep absolutely. Notable and relevant nationally Italian as a professor and essayist for the awards won and the dissemination of his books https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2004077618/ https://scholar.google.it/citations?user=sUFtCR0AAAAJ&hl=it, as well as a television personality for his countless appearances on Italian TV and for the prominence given by the sources to his statements and controversies related to his positions policies, which is also treated by international not Italian speaking sources https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/stellenvergabe-an-italiens-hochschulen-ein-echtes-100.html https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/italien-luigi-di-maio-putin-russland-1.5562597 https://www.lopinion.fr/international/la-fascination-interessee-de-la-television-italienne-pour-les-opinions-pro-poutine?_amp=true .176.247.12.196 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Has yet failed to make a mark on WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Only 424 cites on GS, as yet is far too low to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC).


 * Keep even the very rigid Italian Wikipedia cannot disproof the notability of Orsini. They are debating when (not if) to move it right now!
 * Discussing about recent information is unpractical, considering the coverage in older and more stable sources. Orsini did not just appear only now on newspaper, he was already cited in the past. All these details are however too recent and controversial. For example here orsini is very critical of the reconstruction of the closure of the department given by newspapers, so it's the sort of critical topic that should be taken with calm later.
 * The first part, the one which was enlarged before the AfD was opened, was the most useful one, it's strange to "help" pushing in this territory, IMHO.
 * The English version of its book about Italian Red Brigades is massively cited in theliterature It's probably woth an article per se.
 * That's why he fulfills the general guideline Notability (academics)—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'rigid' Italian Wikipedia? The page has not yet been approved. Full stop.
 * To support the fact that Orsini's book is 'massively' cited (according to whom?) you literally posted a link to a post from Orsini Facebook personal page. And regarding the other link (which is to Google scholar) and you restrict the research to 'scientific articles', the result for citations is just 1 (ONE). I am speechless about your misleading comment. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * GS is not restricted to only scientific articles. See his profile there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Also I want to point out that the 424 citation on Google Scholar are referring to two different people named 'Alessandro Orsini'. And most of them have been published not by the sociologist, but a researcher in pediatric neurology.85.211.232.197 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP said in the literature, not "in the academic literature". Also, as a person who created with another user the Wikidata items of these people to avoid confusion, and I hope a decent expert of bibliometry, I remind you that citations are not potatoes, they vary per sector. I agree that the book about the Red Brigades, which also shows more citations under its Italian titles and was debated over the years, it's probably worth an article per se.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the Facebook link was never used to proved the citations by the IP, it's there to remind that recent news-related information should not be "stuffed" in an article, they are controversial and unstable. I agree with that, there were plenty of sources on the way and available way more stable, but someone really wanted to go this way. In any case, if there are sources entirely dedicated to Orsini, as a whole (that is, in-depth coverage), they seem to be ignored even if recent.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I live in Italy. Everyone I know, in my circle of friends and acquaintances, knows Alessandro Orsini. In 2018, not everyone knew him, but he gave a speech in the Italian National Parliament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k4B_h4Gkc). Therefore, there's no reasonable doubt about him deserving to appear on the Italian wikipedia; but there may be reasonable doubts about the Italian wikipedia deserving to have a page on him, given the way they are dealing with the issue of the final approval of his page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto cassone (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment by author: I am here again because I have just connected the itwikipedia article on Wikidata. So I was curious to read here how it was going. Now, itwikipedia can do whatever they want (maybe they will put it back on the draft? The consensus for the move was however pretty clear)... as you can imagine from some comments here, the whole story turned out to be already a discrete disaster of communication during the last weeks, but it's wrong in general to use other versions to evaluate notability.Maybe now this aspect will be very much appreciated, who knows...


 * In any case few people with a name and a surname will ever make a public statement that Orsini is not notable here in Italy. Even agreeing on high standards of notability, this person was on the national and academic sources already years ago and there are so many sources of different types over the years that you cannot possibly get consensus for the deletion, which is something it should have been explained to people with limited competence instead of pushing for AfD.


 * I might say, I disagree with the concept discussed on itwikipedia that the page should not have been published because of possible tensions despite being notable. From a practical point of view, the page can be handled. For example, here it remained for circa two weeks, no big deal. Experts users approved, it was there to be enlarged... Only the AfD attracted the noise and made impossible to discuss properly about the content. Personally, I won't do as well. too much bile, there at least three clearly false accusations in this procedure.


 * At least we are lucky this AfD did not arrive on national newspapers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: can you stop bludgeoning the discussion please. You don't need to write long screeds to everyone as it discourages participation in the discussion. Also it's irrelevant what has happened on IT. The only issue is do they pass GNG, is this BLP1E and is PROF met? Can we focus further discussion down to this please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I note that, further to discussion on this point above, Italian Wikipedia has now promoted this subject to article space. I view their collection of activities as sufficient to merit inclusion here, also. BD2412  T 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment by author: I was away from here from nine days. That looks like a considerable amnount of time. In the meantime, I see people commenting every issue including reporting false accusations, but nobody cared. That looks like bludgeoning but wasn't it a problem at all? it.wikipedia was not relevant but why stating it to the only person who said so and not to the people who used it for days?
 * I know that not writing or writing again after nine days would have made no difference in the result, but I think a reader should notice this as well because I will not pay the price for everyone. I know it's easier that way, to blame just one person, but it's not correct. The problem was opening the AfD so rapidly. As usual, I am out, I was only here because I connected the itwiki version--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry if I deleted the text by mistake a few days ago, I write again my opinion. Keep per WP:GNG: there is significant coverage of secondary reliable sources which started more than a decade ago. I would like also to point out that this AfD was strange: people tried a lot to talk about an AfD procedure on another wiki, but later it was reminded to ignore that fact when the article was published there. --176.200.60.24 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree with the others saying that he ultimately became famous in Italy because of his strong controversies on Russian conflict, not much for his academics studies --Broncoviz (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2022 (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.