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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Giglia[edit]

Armando Giglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

We don't normally have Wikipedia articles about Run-of-the-mill people like government school principals, and I can't find any reason why this one should be an exception. Graham87 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, mostly primary sources with only press mentions in Education awards. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Steelkamp (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator - no evident reason why should be an exception JarrahTree 02:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of indepth coverage. Just a run of the mill school principal. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could only find one more IRS, which I've added to the page, but nonetheless don't think the page passes GNG. Giglia has received some awards, and held high position in a school principals association, but don't see how that would pass GNG. If this very recently made page were to go through AfC I don't think it would be accepted. Cabrils (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is routine sourcing of the subject's career. There is a state level cohort award, and a senior industry cohort appointment but that is it. Not enough for GNG think. There is no independent reasonably in-depth bio that I can find. There is a lot of press on what the subject says in their industry appointment, but this is not about them. TOOSOON I think. Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not agree with the "run-of-the-mill" assessment of the subject, and I am a bit disappointed with the apparent pile-on. The subject, I think is clearly not run-of-the-mill, ie, a state level award of which there is only one per year, and an appointment of which there is only one every four years or more, and a distinct press profile across mainstream media nationally. If we are to delete (or not) then I think it is best based on the correct evidence. Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2022 (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.