Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Agostini
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 14:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Carlo Agostini[edit]
This article sub-stub was created in July of last year and has not been expanded since. It reads, "Carlo Agostini (April 22, 1888 - December 28, 1952) was an Italian Roman Catholic patriarch." A google search for this name returns 552 hits -- many (if not most) of which are unrelated. [1] Does this figure meet or exceed "the bar"? Under what circumstances should this text be included on Wikipedia? GRider\talk 19:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Considering that a 'patriarch' could simply be the male head of a small family - delete unless significantly substantiated. Radiant! 20:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)Notability established, so change vote to keep. Radiant! 12:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)- An archbishop and patriarch of Venice who was posthumously elevated to cardinal (hit no 2 in Google search) is inherently notable. Keep. / u p p l a n d 21:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; I just expanded it. DS 22:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 00:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Bogus VFD.--Centauri 00:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. 23skidoo 05:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Prominent Churchman. Capitalistroadster 11:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The VfD listing for Carol Alt (a few entries down) asks whether Google is "a level barometer" for determining notability. No, it isn't, partly because it underrepresents anyone whose notability predated the Internet -- like this fellow. JamesMLane 09:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Nomination is a violation of the deletion policy - David Gerard 23:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- According to the deletion policy, it could have been nominated as suspected family vanity (criterium #4), or genealogy (criterium #6 from 'WP is not a general knowledge base', which is criterium #5 for 'unsuitable for wikipedia', which is criterium #1 from deletion policies). Just because it turns out to be notable after all, doesn't mean that nominating it was a violation. Radiant! 12:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The only requirement for a nomination, AFAIK, is that it be made in good faith. This nomination appears to have been made in good faith, and thus violated no policy. Tuf-Kat 02:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- According to the deletion policy, it could have been nominated as suspected family vanity (criterium #4), or genealogy (criterium #6 from 'WP is not a general knowledge base', which is criterium #5 for 'unsuitable for wikipedia', which is criterium #1 from deletion policies). Just because it turns out to be notable after all, doesn't mean that nominating it was a violation. Radiant! 12:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Tuf-Kat 02:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.