Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Tamagnone

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 delete. The participants who favored keeping the article are apparently related and/or involved with

notability. Jamie^☆S93 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Carlo Tamagnone

Unsourced BLP, no notability established, promotional in tone, etc. This person is an Italian and the Italian Wikipedia deleted the article about him, so why would we have one? DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has zero results on JSTOR, although that's a dabatase heavily weighted towards English. Still, zero results means no one writing in English is even citing his work, and a large majority of major philosophy journals are in English. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete Not in the itWP, which seemed curious; checking, it was speedy deleted from there a few days ago. [1]. I will assume they know what they are doing. Only one of his books has more than one US/Canda library holding :Ateismo filosofico nel mondo antico -- which has 11. Nothing in google Scholar. No evidence of any academic position. DGG (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also deleted from French Wikipedia after a long discussion. See: [2]. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the edit histories for the various foreign language wiki's look suspicious, per the .fr and .it [3] AFD discussions . In light of his publications (all within the last 8 years) I was going to suggest a merge to
Atheist existentialism but with that article's own history and a lack of reliable secondary coverage (google.it searches all come up primary with nothing on scholar or news) I'd have to agree with the nom. – Zedla (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - a lack of results in JSTOR is a pretty serious problem for any claim that this man is a notable philosopher. I note the article doesn't state that he has been employed by any university philosophy departments, or been published in any philosophy journals; his books could well be self-published, for all the information about them that's given here. The fact that he's already been deleted on the French and Italian WPs is also a bad sign (although we don't have exactly the same inclusion policies as them). If anyone can provide clear, objective evidence of this man's notability, I'd be prepared to keep, but at the moment it simply isn't there. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see that several of us are referring to the italian deletion. The problem is if it is reliable also “outside Italy”. Well, I think that it is not at all. Italy is a very strange country and I think that we must not to do so, for at least two reasons. The 1rst: it is dominated (like all the others Italian institutions) by the Catholics; the 2nd: in Italy no atheist thinker has the minimal possibility to keep an univeritary chair, being the universities, all, in the hands of Catholics. Not enough, in Italy there are university directly managed by the Vatican and other from institutions to it connected, as the “Catholic” in Milan, Rome and other places. No great publisher would never publish philosophy works of a contemporary atheist, therefore only brave little pubblishers ones make it. Anyway Tamagnone was invited by Radio Vaticana in the November of 2005 to represent the atheists thought versus the christian one; this means that he is considered by the italian atheists the only representative atheist philosopher living and in the same time that Radio Vaticana has agreed to consider it such. I add that in Italy the atheists are hidden, but estimated in 15% of the population, therefore, approximately, 9 million people. Yet, university teacher atheists are 0%, pubblishers hosting atheist essays <1%. Besides, catholic university teachers are about 90% and catholic pubblishers (subordinated to Vatican, CEI, Dioceses, Communion and Liberation, Catholic Action, etc) are at least 70%. The French wikipedia was whrong deleting the article referring the Italian one. We will do it also hier? I hope not. --Uarrin (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaa? Are you arguing that he's notable because the reason we can't find any evidence of notability is that he might have been suppressed or ignored? What? You can use the same sort of argument to prove that there are ghosts in your house. Hairhorn (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uarrin‎, which involves Uarrin, Skeppyrron and Gioj50 from this page and others. DreamGuy (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second and recent Italian wikipedia AFD discussion [4] – Zedla (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? H'm! Ghost? But for whom? I suspect that there is a "Catholic workshop which manufactures ghosts" of who are to become invisible! Can we exclude that philosophers atheists in Italy "must be ghosts?" I do not trust. --Skeppyrron (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Skeppyrron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- more than half of this editor's less than 20 edits have been adding blank lines to articles (with rest being to add questionable see also links and to promote this author). DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Very fine story that of a ghost representing nine million people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gioj50 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thank'you! I confirm KEEP --Gioj50 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Gioj50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - user has almost 60 edits, but more than half of them have been to add blank lines to articles/move things around on pages, 25 have been to add See also links of questionable value/fix his own spellings on those see alsos and the rest have been to promote this author. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to think there are ghosts in my house, but ghosts are hard to see, and they might hide while I'm awake. Therefore there are probably ghosts in my house... (do I need to spell it out? Lack of evidence isn't evidence.) Hairhorn (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi, DreamGuy, I did too hasty contributed in last time, because assumed that after the French deletion would starts the English one. The same IPs is because we are friends and working often together. If you will see carefully, you’ll verify that we contributed not only pro-Tamagnone but pro-atheist philosophy in general. Therefore we contributed also pro Onfray and Comte-Sponville, but they are Frenchmen and “not Italians”. So they have a completely different situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A157247 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin User:A157247 was already part of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uarrin‎ inquiry before it posted here.
Yes, I think you're right! --93.38.68.105 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 93.38.68.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the problem is: keep the article entirely or to riduce it a little ? It is IMHO too long and complicated. --94.81.38.80 (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)--94.81.38.80 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 94.81.38.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the fans of this fellow acted in a questionable and broken manner, but would not say wrong or illegal. It seems to me that they contributed in a way that can dislike to those ones who not think like them. But why delete the item? We have articles quite much worse, while this one has at least the worth of give some service to the culture. Bob78 --79.14.145.184 (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 79.14.145.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still no notability established despite the slightly ridiculous arguments above. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends and not sockpuppets. DreamGuy continues to use the provocative word sockpuppet and also ran a Sockpuppet investigation about me. He did so probably because saw that some of us wrote on pcs connected to the same server. I invite him to remember that can be hundreds of thousands of pc connected to a single server. This would mean (according to his point of view) that in some companies or public administrations would be hundreds of thousands of sockpuppets. This manner of inventing sockpuppets where there are not is primarily improper and secondly very offensive addressed to some persons which think each one with its own head and not with a single head. We're not clones but real persons! --Uarrin (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is way off topic. You could post this at the sockpuppet page instead, the space reserved for your comments there is still blank. Hairhorn (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t want accuse of "bad faith", but surely my accuser acted without know what is a server, that can connect hundreds of thousands of single pcs in great companies or in public administrations. In our case we are associated in little clubs with ten-fifteen computers, but the users can be hundreds . Secondly: my accuser thinks that many people cannot contribute on Wikipedia expressing themeselves in the same spirit of thought: in our case the atheism. Thirdly: evidently he does not appreciate our point of view and then fights them. That is legitimate, but…with correctness. --Athex50 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin
WP:AGF and completely false. The info presented on the sockpuppet page shows more commonalities in specific edit patterns than one would expect from mere friends, and a gang of friends voting together is meatpuppetry anyway, which is almost as bad. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Good faith indeed? Are you sure? I'm not. --151.21.90.32 (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No established English notability. Perhaps his works can help strength historical contexts of atheism, but an individual article is not required.R.Vinson (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.