Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gualtiero Piccinini


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Gualtiero Piccinini

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted as it is non-notable and based on unreliable primary sources. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Google Scholar shows a lot of citations of his work. Quick search found him in Popular Science Apr 2003 and a brief mention in Science News September 15, 2007. Improve sourcing. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep a GS h-index of 17 probably suffices to pass WP:Prof. Also passes WP:Prof. Would the nominator like to explain why the primary sources are unreliable? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC).
 * They do not establish notability in my view. However, within this academic perspective, I will concede to this prospect of validity. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On what policy is your view based? Did you consider policy before making this nomination? Xxanthippe (talk).
 * "Significant coverage that covers the topic in detail" is a clear one under WP:GNG. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With this being predicated by "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you click on my link, which you should have done as part of WP:Before, you will find 778 reliable sources, most of which are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC).
 * I did do such procedure and found none of them amounted to significant coverage. Perhaps I underestimate the coverage given; however, in my judgement I do not find it warranting an article for this man nor the resources of this encyclopedia towards maintaining this article. As we speak, the resources of various people are being directed towards this article rather than perhaps more meaningful ones. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I advise you to read WP:Prof and its talk page and archives to assess consensus in these matters.. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Undecided. I can see how Thoughtmaker can claim the subject fails the general notability guideline since there is really not much secondary source information on him, not much in the news, not much in the non-academic world. One thing I look for in the lede paragraph is the "X is notable for..." line, and the current lede only suggests what the subject is working on. That said, there is a strong publishing history with many of his articles cited by many others. Further, he published an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is impressive; ditto Popular Science. Further, he is an editor of a journal in his field. So, I am uncertain how to call this one. I bet in ten years there will be more sources. Sorry to be so wishy-washy but I am undecided.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The history of this article shows meaningful contributions by multiple editors over time. Some statements were poorly sourced and were correctly deleted by Immanuel Thoughtmaker. But other statements are correct and have reliable sources, either primary or secondary. I restored some such statements and sources and updated some other information on the entry. As a quick look at Google Scholars citations shows, Piccinini's notability in the field has grown considerably since this entry was created in 2010. He was recently promoted to full professor (two years ahead of schedule, which is quite unusual) and received an award from an international society.Marq91 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2014 (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.