Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignazio Ciufolini (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 keep.  Sandstein  20:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ignazio Ciufolini
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dear Sirs, I am Ignazio Ciufolini (the Wikipedia staff verified my identity) and I am asking to delete my biography on Wikipedia because I have found that the page is being used for libelous statements. For some reason the page provides an unbalanced point of view, giving undue attention to controversies and lawsuits, while information concerning my research accomplishments has been removed without reason.

It seems that in the past years my page has been a magnet for editing wars resulting in unwanted attention on the libelous attacks against me instead of on my academic works. I do not have time and will to watch and to correct further personal attacks on my biography page, therefore please cosider to delete it.

Prof. Ignazio Ciufolini

University of Salento and Centro Fermi (Rome, Italy) Ignazio.Ciufolini (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reading the article right now, I do not see any immediate bias, POV, or potentially libelous statements... and looking at the edit history, I find it hard to believe it is much of a target for any attention at all with less than 30 edits in the last 5 years... and none reverted as vandalism or POV, and no signs at all of edit warring... as far as your comment about having the time and will to watch and correct it, unless you have been using multiple accounts, this account is less than a month old with zero edits to the article in question besides the deletion request, how much time have you spent trying to fix the alleged issues? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Further comment suggesting Speedy Close - After being gone for a while, I needed to look further into this... it appears this is something that is more appropriately brought up with oversight if you feel that there are issues with libel, or following the directions at WP:AUTOPROB... therefore, I suggest a Speedy Close for this specific AfD, as the subject of the article is notable, and the article itself is well(?) written and sourced... this AfD was started before the user had looked into any other options or the proper channels for his specific complaint... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep He passed WP:PROF back in 2013, and he passes it now. Some mentions of awards were indeed cut in 2014; these were of the type that are normally included in academic biographies and could be added back in again. As to the allegations of academic misconduct, Retraction Watch is a reliable source for these purposes. And we don't delete articles just because they might be embarrassing for their subjects. There's nothing here that would make deletion a good course of action. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is unambiguous.  WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST is for cases where the notability is marginal.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a clear WP:ACADEMIC keep. I wonder what the person's referring to as I don't see any libelous statements made in the biography. Nor would that imply a more complicated solution than protecting the page anyhow. PK650 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * this is very likely (I could certainly be wrong here) a continuation of their longstanding feud with Italian physicist Iorio Lorenzo, probably following some online harassment or similar. And from the nature of that dispute (I don't know who's in the right, who's in the wrong, and I don't care either), it's not going to stop anytime soon, regardless of whether or not we have an article on them. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for the background info. Is there any evidence of serious vandalism in the article itself to warrant such a claim from this scientist, though? PK650 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as recipient of Giuseppe Occhialini Medal and Prize (here), 1995 PROSE Award (here), 2001 Premio Caterina Tomassoni e Felice Pietro Chisesi Prize (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2020 (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.