Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Ageno

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Ageno[edit]

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

Article has been an orphan for well over 1 year; article has multiple issues that no one has fixed Ankababel (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He turns up mainly in books. Here's one in English. And here's a book on the history of physics in Italy that has a fair amount about him: Foresta, Martin F, and Geppi Calcara. Per Una Storia Della Geofisica Italiana: La Nascita Dell'istituto Nazionale Di Geofisica (1936) E La Figura Di Antonino Lo Surdo. Milano: Springer, 2010. Plus, there was an entire symposium in his honor: Ageno, Mario, Edoardo Amaldi, and L Maiani. Fisica E Biofisica Oggi: Atti Del Simposio in Onore Di M. Ageno : Roma, 1-2 Ottobre 1985 : Società Italiana Di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. Bologna: Editrice Compositori, 1989. So I would say that he easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. I'll try to add a few sources to the article, but physics isn't my forte. LaMona (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems notable and acceptable and will need familiar attention for improvements. DGG, given you have some familiar insight with this, would you comment? SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically for the same reason LaMona already gave: he seems to have plenty of in-depth and reliably published book coverage, enough for WP:GNG. Some of the sources are in Italian but that's ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly a snow keep.' I am a little puzzled at the possible justification for this nomination. "article has multiple issues that no one has fixed" is not a reason for deletion--or we'd delete almost every article in WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. This is faulty reasoning for this to be at AfD, the articles verifiability/notability don't seem to be in question, just the quality of the article, which really (while short) is not terrible. Jacona (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly Speedy Keep -- the nom has given a rationale but not one that is generally recognized for AfD consideration. Notable subject. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOWBALL close.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2015 (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.