Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aureliano Brandolini


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Aureliano Brandolini

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

At least seems to fail WP:PROF (lack of secondary sources attesting to his notability is a concern). Also, for what it's worth, the article is written by his son. - Biruitorul Talk 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not notable as far as I can tell, although there are probably resources in Italian that I'm missing. Possible A7 speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Need a citation search here. He could be notable, certainly for the Italian Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Promotional. As far as patience took me, the only mentions of Mr. Brandolini in native online sources attest only the fact that he exists. Nobody disputes that, but it don't make the cut as far as notability goes. Lest we start using the Yellow Pages as a source. Dahn (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Distinguished career in Italian agricultural science. Most of his work was done before the web existed so short on web sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC).
 * WP:V needs to be met; merely asserting that evidence of notability exists in Italian archives is no substitute for documentation of that notability. - Biruitorul Talk 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The usual ways I can distinguish notability are lacking here: the material is not in citation indexes,and is primarily published in reports not journals. Moreover, it is primarily national, or at best regional--most applied agriculture is, and this gives great difficulty in evaluation. He was director of vbarious institutes at a national level, but none of them seem of really major importance. I concluded weak keep, on the basis that his work was not limited to Italy, but that he did specific work in South America also., and thus had an international reputation. DGG (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Auto Biography written by user:Giorgio V. Brandolini about a subject marginal notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. An autobiography written nearly a year after he died? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Not an autobiography, just a family biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:VERIFY is not something we can just ignore. The subject doesn't meet WP:NOTE in any way. Working in more than one country or on more than one continent does NOT make someone notable so let's quash notion that before it starts popping up in other AfD discussions.  (Probably that doesn't need to be said but it might fool some people.) Drawn Some (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic/research institution or major academic society). The subject was the General Director of the Istituto agronomico per l'oltremare (see, also, Giardino Botanico Tropicale dell'Istituto Agronomico per l'Oltremare). From WP:PROF: “Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of […] director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center …” In cases like this, taking a look at Google Books (see here) can be enlightening, as the subjects may be cited in relatively recent books for their important past contributions, even if they happened a while ago.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, but do we really want to be keeping around a promotional text written by his son? Surely the "subject of published secondary source material ... independent of the subject" standard of WP:BIO is worth adhering to, and surely a smattering of citations is no substitute for coverage of the actual subject -- right? - Biruitorul Talk 02:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not right, really. The provenance of the article is irrelevant to its notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe is correct. COI is not a reason for deletion, although it is a red flag, which should prompt editors to edit the article. In cases like this, the articles often need to be reduced and their tone made more neutral. I am trying to find some time in the next few days to do that, if the article is kept.--Eric Yurken (talk)
 * 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.