Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenico Griminelli


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -  The   Magnificentist  08:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Domenico Griminelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Based on the English incarnation of this article (which appears to be roughly identical to the Italian, going on length at least), this person simply doesn't pass GNG. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know how WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC would apply to 17th century figures. He wrote a book in the mid 17th century which had several editions and is included in various collections including academic libraries, La matematica antica su CD-ROM, and the microfilm collection Goldsmiths-Kress library of economic literature. He was a specialist in business mathematics rather than a pure mathematician. There's some mentions on Google Books but without full-text view (e.g. From Oikonomia to Political Economy: Constructing Economic Knowledge from the Renaissance to the Scientific Revolution by Germano Maifreda includes him in the index twice; there's a bit of info in this 19th C book; something here; etc). It needs someone with specialised research tools and archival access to research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go as far as to say that if any of that were to be added to the article, it would surely pass some standard somewhere (I picked on GNG rather than the more specialised routes for precisely that reason). As it stands, he's "a bloke from Italy who studied maths", in essence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well, it's nice of you to say that the article "would" pass GNG if any of that were ADDED to the article, but the comment reveals a mistaken view of how AfD works. If there EXIST sufficient sources to make the article notable, the article is in fact notable however bad its current state. Notability depends on the existence, somewhere in the world, of suitable sources, not on someone adding them to articles. If ColaPeninsula is correct about these links, and you agree they are reliable, then notability is proven and the AfD should be withdrawn and closed as Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * :Yes and no. Simply waving your hand in the general direction of sources and saying "They are out there, someone can surely find them" doesn't confer notability on an article subject. Once they're added and the man in the street knows that they exist, then the issue is resolved. The reverse is anarchy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly true that once they're added there is no doubt for anyone. However, if they are out there the article is notable, a point I guess you have just about taken on board by now, for which I'm grateful, and per WP:BEFORE, you the nominator have the duty to search for them: it's plain you didn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting powers of telepathy you have there. I can confirm that I did as much searching as I was capable of doing from the location I'm in with the database access etc that I have. Beyond the general sort of "handwaving" I outlined above, I couldn't find anything much. Thank heavens for those who have the access to sources such as those being added to the article. And for those who can see what editors on the other side of the world are doing, I suppose, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - it seems a shame to delete this as Griminelli was the author of an early book on commercial arithmetic (that's an Italian maths magazine entry). I've added a link to the Archive.org copy of the book, so the full text is available online. Just the age of the book makes it close to notable; if we can't keep the article then there should be a merge and redirect, maybe we can find a place in the History of mathematics, ideally a commercial section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi, I'm a wikipedian in residence @ BEIC, a digital library where we are working, among other things, on creating and translating many articles about this kind of subject, i.e. authors of relevant works in their fields (for example mathematics of 15th century in Italy or history of bookkeeping). Even if the number of informations on many authors is often limited (because the are very ancient and because of the very specific field, like bookkeping), we think those authors are relevant for historical reasons and should have an article (in more languages). So I will expand every article, adding more sources. The problem is that BigHaz proposed not a single deletion but a mass deletion (of 20+ articles), and unfortunately I'm going to holidays; so I need more time to collect informations (at least a month, also WiRs goes to holidays once in a year...). I'm sad for a such event now in a 3-years-running GLAM project, as I think the thing should have been managed in a different and nicer way. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Slapdash editing methods are to blame for this problem. I find you incompetent to your task. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that is perhaps a little harsh, especially if there were many articles to be covered. This stub was not so much slapdash as very lightly cited. The proximate cause of having this at AfD is something else, the widespread belief that notability depends on citations in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not harsh enough, to my mind. Our Wikipedians-in-Residence are our connection to these institutions. They should know what our policies and guidelines are. Marco Chemello would do well to learn about en-wp before creating articles here, as I'd guess it-wp is his home wiki. Handing us a bullshit explanation like "we think those authors are relevant for historical reasons and should have an article" is unacceptable. Creating an unreferenced stub is unacceptable. Marco is not in his position to advertise for his institution. I am all for wp connectivity to institutes of high learning. I've spent time as a campus ambassador and visiting scholar, which is why I'm so disappointed by this. Marco complains "the thing should have been managed in a different and nicer way" and I think he owes us an apology. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Marco Chemello (BEIC) Take no notice of the eccentric and unrepresentative views above and continue your good work. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Yes, I was called "stupid" by Troutman for disagreeing with him in a policy argument at an Afd which he roundly lost. He seems to resort to ad hominem insults as a matter of course. Ignore him. Troutman is the one who owes an apology, though I wouldn't hold your breath. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please give a link for future reference. I have noticed similar behavior of this nature by the same editor that appears to breach WP:Civil. He admits to have been a paid editor for a paid editing organization, since banned from Wikipedia. I have put a note on his talk page, which page is worth taking a look at to assess the standards of Civility that he practises. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep. I think anyone from this time for whom we have nontrivial documentation is probably notable. Google book search finds in snippet view Historia del derecho de la navegación I (Peláez 1994) "La utilísima publicación de Domenico Griminelli sobre aritmética mercantil, sobre compañías, cambios, cotizaciones de plazas, etc., salida de la imprenta en 1656, no mereció ser recogida y comentada por la literatura jurídica pancatalana...", and Scuola e insegnamento: atti del XXXV convegno di Studi maceratesi (2001) "Nella novissima prattica d'aritmetica mercantile (in Roma, per il successore al Mascardi, 1670), di Domenico Griminelli sacerdote di Correggio, oltre ai soliti argomenti, troviamo un breve capitolo dedicato ai giochi matematici, tra cui quello..." so there is ongoing continued interest in his works, enough I think to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:V,. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. One issue is David Eppstein's "non-trivial" vs WP:GNG's "in-depth". I added an entry in a bibliography of Itallian rationalist(?) literature which is a fairly long entry but not really about Griminelli. That said, there is in my opinion enough here that no original research is required to write the article and there is in my opinion enough that the individual is likely to be covered in more sources, perhaps offline. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really intending "non-trivial" to be different from "in-depth". But we don't generally require a whole source to provide in-depth coverage; a paragraph within a larger source can sometimes be considered "in-depth". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant contributor to early applications of arithmetic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete Keep we have more than enough sources to show notability, way more than on many footballers who have their articles kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. I meant to say Keep, I am not sure why I wrote delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why delete then? Editor has been banned from creating new AfDs, but is allowed to contribute to those not created by him. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I was not banned from creating new AfDs, that is a mischaracterization of the outcome. I was restricted from creating more than 1 in any 24-hour period, but I am allowed to create 1 every 24 hours, so that is not the same as a ban. However as I said.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable from the available sources. I too am concerned about 's !vote given his rationale, but it's possible he just got mixed up and put down the wrong thing. He's had three days to respond, but apparently nobody pinged him so I just did. If he still doesn't respond, we may need to take this to WP:ANI given his history. Smartyllama (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Threatening an ANI becuase someone voted delete is pretty extreme. Especially when no other exitors have voted delete. This is the antithesis of assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment People are way to harsh in attacking others in AfD, and too often engage in ad hominen attacks where they try to disparge others ideas because of their statements. The root cause of the restrictions on me is the over zealous nature of the protectors of the special privilages given to articles on athletes and the very divisive and not at all friendly methods used to enforce these policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2017 (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.