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. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donato Seppi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, founder of a really small party (5.688 votes in 2008) whose higher seat is a member in a third-level political assembly in Italy Vituzzu (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the pages has been created and then (mainly) maintained by him, who is supposed to join this afd soon.--Vituzzu (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, well, the article isn't well written, especially due to the fact that a "supporter" is was the main author, I think that's obvious. But nevertheless the article shouldn't be deleted, since Seppi surely reaches our requirements for notability.

Vituzzu writes that Seppi is a member in a third-level political assembly. That's from a strictly hierarchical viewpoint correct, but fails to explain that this "third-level political assembly" is not some minor negligible institution, but the parliament of an autonomous province (South Tyrol) with a destinctly high level of legislative competencies. Secondly, every member of the South Tyrolian parliament is automatically member of the (second-level) regional assembly of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (which is by the way - speaking in terms of realpolitik - far less important than the former...). As far as I know politicians at these levels are considered surely notable at en.wikipedia, kind of obvious when we have a look at Category:Members of the Idaho House of Representatives...

Additionally, he is a quite controversial politician (I think the photo in the article speaks for itself, his communication techniques are based on a self-portrayal as a tough defender of the South Tyrolean Italianity), and thus he can't be considered a silent backbencher, since his activities gain (on a South Tyrolean level) a broad press coverage. Just as an example the hits for his name in the archive of the Italian-language newspaper of the province Alto Adige: [1]. Unfortunately other media in the province don't have a openly accessible archive... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Mai-Sachme. Seppi is a notable politician, both for his role and his character, in a country where regions and autonomous provinces play a big role. That's especially true for the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (or South Tyrol). I know that in it.Wiki politicians like Seppi are not considered encyclopedic, but fortunately this is not it.Wiki but en.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable politician who has been elected to national office. The article itself needs to close attention in relation to WP:COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; meets WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices." He holds a province-wide office, which nobody seems to dispute. There's also been some coverage in Italian and German, although most of it is trivial. I'm willing to cede the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is more significant coverage in reliable provincial sources not available online. --Batard0 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 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.