Talk:Francis Saviour Farrugia

File:Francis Saviour Farrugia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Francis Saviour Farrugia.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Philosopher or penologist?

Without going into the matter whether this biography satisfies WP:NOTABILITY (probably not), based on the little that he wrote, Farrugia is a penologist not a philosopher. Any other views? Demdem (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering Maltese history and its limited application that argument could be used for almost anything. And yet - Wikipedia should be comprehensive, and the inclusion of any and all information that is interesting, well referenced and relevant must be encouraged. Keep on keeping on! 46.11.30.197 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with providing some information about a person who's not an non-entity and might be of interest to someone looking him up on Wikipedia? Farrugia's inclusion certainly satisfies WP:BIO in that he is sufficiently interesting to deserve attention or to be recorded. His exclusion would be a mistake. Moreover, why can't Farrugia be both a penologist and a philosopher? In the 18^th century the distinction would have made perfect sense since the 'specialisation' (or 'professionalisation') phase of philosophy had not began yet. Today, perhaps, we would have judged otherwise, and this might be the reason why Farrugia's name does not feature in the main article of Philosophy in Malta. Nonetheless, failing to recognise a competence which in Farrugia's day would have been more than appropriate would be a historical blunder. Furthermore, the article offers sufficient information on Farrugia to keep his contribution in perspective. Merely stating that he was only a penologist will not do him justice. As one can easily note, Farrugia's contribution is wider in scope than an 18^th century penologist would deal with. Besides, his logical methodology in dealing with his chosen themes (1778) is philosophical, which, in the last analysis, is what counts here. In other words, the qualification 'philosopher' (and a minor one at that) adds something significant to 'penologist' which is worth noting. --Katafore (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)