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. The only argument made for deletion was quickly addressed, notability was argued on several independent bases. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuccio Ordine

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is in Romanian Terraflorin (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is English-language content in the history, I have restored that now. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the current biography is a copyvio of [1] but it definitely asserts a notability far beyond GNG. There pages of cites, mostly of reviews in JSTOR and a large number of cites in Google Scholar given his linguistic and subject background. Easy pass of WP:PROF#C3 (see honors). If the article passes I'll try my best to write a non-copy-vio version of the page. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly for the reasons given above, by Michael Scott Cuthbert Hairy poker monster (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:PROF as well as more general guidelines, with recognition from major bodies, reviewed work, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this keep getting relisted when the nominator's concern was addressed a few hours after the nomination and nobody else has supported deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the English page and make it correspond to the English language. The same for the page in Romanian. All I did was make the translation from English into Romanian, that is all. --Ramonacatalinas (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2012 (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.