Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filippo De Palma


 * 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. After three weeks there seems little prospect of consensus being reached. Michig (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Filippo De Palma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable instrument maker. Winged Blades Godric 15:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As the starting point here is a museum exhibit, there should be a strong presumption of notability, per WP:PRESERVE. There seem to be other sources in Italian covering this person's work so this seems adequate for further work per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep keep per the persuasive, policy-based arguments provided by Andrew Davidson. Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment--Well if somebody thinks every museum exhibit is by default notable and ought to have a stand-alone entry.....that is mind-boggling.And may-be one should cite the sources he/she has found rather than simply stating about their existence.  Winged Blades Godric 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mind-boggling to me when someone gets so set on deleting harmless articles. Andrew and I made policy-based arguments above. We aren't going to change our minds because the AfD nom disagrees. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * May-be you could just provide the sources and the policy stating--Museum exhibits are enough notable by default to have a WP article.And no I did not ever ask you to change your mind!Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy was expressly named right after Andrew made his claim. You can look for the sources yourself. Lepricavark (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE stating the statement quoted in green????Well, extending a bout of WP:AGF towards my co-partcipant, I think I am mad.Period. Winged Blades Godric 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you expect me to go looking for an exact quote that you made up, maybe your self-assessment is correct. I'm not going to quote Andrew's exact words since they are pretty easy to find, but my point was that Andrew cited a policy right after he made his claim about the notability of the subject. Lepricavark (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's precisely correct.He claimed X but cited a policy about Y.But he has, after-all cited a policy, so who cares? Winged Blades Godric 16:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Or he simply interpreted the policy in a broad manner. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the issue of notability seems quite clear. The notability guideline says that "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this ..."  A museum would usually be considered such a reliable and independent source.  The entry in the Museo Galileo for this topic is therefore prima facie evidence of notability.  As we find that other sources cover the topic too, we have adequate confirmation to retain the page.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Other than the single reference in the article, I could only find a few passing mentions in Italian. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject isn't notable and fails WP:BIO. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as a harmless stub. Perhaps some one will one day undertake the research to write a proper biography.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment--Ridiculous argument!AFD's are not decided on whether they are harmless or not.Please argue on basis of WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 05:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the pompousness really necessary? Do you really expect keep !voters to follow the directives of the AfD nom? Lepricavark (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for policy-based arguments. PRESERVE intones finding sources rather than removing unsourced sentences. It doesn't proscribe presuming notability. I absolutely understand Godric's exasperation with arguments based in unreasonable inclusionism. Peterkingiron's comment makes me question competence. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:50, 15 March 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.