Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Ramaciotti

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 no consensus‎. Views are split between keeping the article as is, or moving to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation. The latter can be done outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Ramaciotti

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. He appears to be famous for setting up "Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation" but that just redirects to his sister's article. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, especially given some reference is made to him on his sister's page. Delete per nom, fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: Yet again, LibStar nominates an article for deletion without considering first whether a merge might be the more appropriate outcome; and being wilfully blind to local cultural context in evaluating sources (as per discussion below with SproulesLane) Jack4576 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources to establish notability? I did a search so "being wilfully blind to local cultural context" is wrong. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find sources for this, Karnataka (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP or at very least MERGE with Vera Ramaciotti or create a Ramaciotti Family article as they are one of the most extraordinary philanthropic families in Australian history. They are fascinating given their non-Anglo background at a time when Sydney and the whole of the country was very “White Bread”. SproulesLane (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet notability guidelines? LibStar (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Clive and Vera Ramaciotti and see that they have funded close to $100 million to biomedical research alone and I think you have your answer. I’m happy to merge them and list it under the name of the foundation if editors think I should but I’m certainly not going to go to the trouble if others end up deleting the article. SproulesLane (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide actual sources. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation: Fails GNG and BIO, but there appears to be enough SIGCOV in ProQuest to support an article about the foundation and enough refs to support sections for the founders, Vera Ramaciotti can also be moved here. The end result will be a solid article, but there are not sources to support two stand alone bios. // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the cited sources are enough to pass WP:BIO, and no other sufficient coverage can be found. If Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation is actually a stand alone article, I'll vote for redirect, but before that article is created, deletion seem to be the only viable option. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until someone can explain why the Biographical cuttings on Clive Ramaciotti held by the National Library of Australia are not good enough. Even if after examining them and they are found wanting then deletion is still not needed. Whether covered in an article on the foundation or his sister and redirecting or merging there then no reason to actually delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on The National Library of Australia determining that Clive Ramaciottii is sufficiently notable to hold a file of his biographical cuttings. On googling his hame alone I find 101 mentions before it gives up the ghost … In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 101 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. Even though 10 of those are Wikipedia copycat biographies 90 mentions of Clive indicate that he has made a very notable contribution to biomedical research all over Australia. The many SMH & Age articles written about him after his death aren’t available on Trove but some from News Limited and The Australian are. SproulesLane (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot !vote twice. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. You must specify precise sources. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not an expert on Articles for deletion as clearly our serial deletionist LibStar is but we are now very clear on his viewpoint on this matter but I have changed my view. I have deleted my original comment and would appreciate it if I could do it myself rather than being bullied by another editor. My understanding is that this isn’t a Vote so much as a community consensus and I look forward to hearing what our wider community thinks on this call for deletion. In the meantime, LibStar thank you for teaching me as a fellow editor how to blank out my original thoughts on this matter. I truly appreciate your assistance. SproulesLane (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bullying you, I'm suggesting how you can improve your keep argument. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on either the sources or the National Library of Australia cuttings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation redirects. At the moment, there's nowhere to merge this so that cannot be considered. One more spin for some policy based input and less finger pointing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation, together with Vera Ramaciotti. Neither of them are independently notable, but the foundation is. (Also, it redirects right back here, so a move is a perfectly acceptable outcome.) – bradv 00:43, 20 June 2023 (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.