Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raimondo Guarini 1765-1852 Italian Archaeologist,Epigrapher,Poet,College President,Teacher


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raimondo Guarini

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Aside from a title which approaches record length, this article has major problems. It appears to have been copied and pasted from some source, though apparently not online. Notability is possible, but verification is difficult. The article definitely lacks encyclopedic tone, particularly with phrases like "One may derive great pleasure by reading...." This article is fixable, but the original author has ignored requests to do so. Right now, it looks horrible. Realkyhick 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Nomination withdrawn. Much work has been done to make this article usable. The subject seems to be obviously notable, now that the article has been fixed. The Heymann Standard has been met. Motion to close this discussion administratively, with thanks to all those who worked to rescue this article. Realkyhick 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. I found some books written by him and, obviously, some about him, that may, on closer inspection, lead to notability. However, this article is an unsalvageable cut-and-pasted nightmare that should be totally rewritten.--Sethacus 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, as the subject is notable. I can't argue that it's "an unsalvageable cut-and-pasted nightmare that should be totally rewritten," but that's not really a reason for deletion. Please, go rewrite the dude's article.  I've started by moving it to a real title.  KP Botany 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is now at Raimondo Guarini. The redirect has been deleted. --Bduke 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fixed the link to the new article. The page title of the debate can stay as it was. J Milburn 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to keep in light of the changes being done by myself and KP Botany. I've just copywritten the article and added information on a secondary school named in his honor.--Sethacus 02:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, thanks, among it, the David Crews and the Anna Wilding articles I thought I'd stepped into a foreign language. This one was the most important, but I just couldn't slog through the English any more.  KP Botany 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Greatly improved, folks. Good work! I think this now meets The Heymann Standard, and I'm withdrawing the nomination. Thanks to everyone involved. (Is there a place to nominate articles needing emergency help like this, when the subject itself is probably notable but the article itself is a basket case? If not, there should be.) Realkyhick 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You could always do the clean up yourself, rather than relying on other people to do it or (wrongly) nominating it for an AfD. AfD is not for clean up. You said in your nomination that it was fixable, so why not try to fix it first?  Nick mallory 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for dictating how I spend my time on Wikipedia via an AfD. Feel free to ask someone on their user page in the future.  KP Botany 04:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And move it to a proper title, and speedy the crap title, first, next time, also. Geeze.  KP Botany 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This one was beyond my ability to fix, frankly. I had asked the original author to do so, with no reply. No one dictated how anyone should spend their time. The article, when first nominated, was a bunch of undecipherable crap and deserved to be deleted as it stood. Others with better knowledge of the subject (and more patience) fixed it after the nomination, and thereby salvaged it. There seems to be a few folks who believe that if an article is nominated, subsequently fixed and the nominations is withdrawn, then the nominator should be chastised for wasting time, bandwidth and other precious resources. Frankly, that's a pretty poor attitude. I nominate articles for AfD when I feel an article is beyond hope. But if someone else comes along and fixes it (which doesn't happen all that often), I'm not going to be so hard-headed as to say, "I nominated this for deletion and, by golly, I'm sticking with that view no mater what." If the original article had been deleted, or if it is improved and kept — both are positive outcomes for Wikipedia as a whole, and that is ultimately what is important.


 * (Yeah, I should've moved it to a different title, though. I'll 'fess up to that one.) Realkyhick 05:10, 2 September 2007 (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.