Help requested to mediate deletion of article Maurizio Giuliano

Dear Chair,

The above article has been the subject of changes and disputes, and finally it has been deleted.  I was involved in editing the article, and I honestly can disclose the fact that I know the subject of the article.  But I honestly don't feel that I am biased in favour of the article - though as a lawyer, I trust you can better see whether I am indeed objective as I claim to be.

To the best of my perception, most if not all the changes, and the deletion itself, saw the involvement of a specific user, whom I shall not mention out of courtesy.  I was surprised by the objections and changes made by the user, but did not object, and instead worked with him to solve the issue and improve my own objectivity.  We had some useful correspondence and I felt the issue was being addressed informally.

PROBLEM: Now however, the article has been deleted.  And I can see on the deletion discussion, that there was no consensus at all.  One specific user pushed for the deletion, and a decision was taken to delete, despite many votes to keep.  The discussion seems to me very biased against the subject of the article, and I note the following:

 The objector stated that his status as Guinness record holder is not proven.  The subject IS in the Guinness Book of World Records, 2006 edition, page 126 on the UK edition.  I can send a copy of the scanned page by email or upload it as may be requested.  I think this already makes him notable.  (The objector pointed out that some online media cited him as being 23 when he broke the record.  He was instead 28, and this is reflected correctly in the Guinness Book and in other media.  Some media just got it wrong.  I don't see why this should be relevant).

 Regarding his books, the subject published two books.  The objector claimed that these are self-published sources.  That is true.  But there is also plenty of third-party materials about his books, which you can find online.  So, he published two books which have been reviewed by others - he is an author.  I think this is enough for inclusion.

 Finally, the strangest thing: the objector disputes his notability as a UN official !  The issue here is that his status as a UN official was not even mentioned in the article - certainly not until I last saw it !  So, why did this become a topic for discussion ?  This makes me almost suspect that there may be a 'personal' element.

 Regarding other articles where he is cited...  The same user has also deleted his name - among many - from the article on the Centre for Social Studies, where there was a sentence stating that the Centre's published authors included him.  How can this be disputed ?  There is a book with ISBN etc. available on Amazon, clearly indicating that he is the author and the Centre is the publisher.  This should be sufficient proof of the fact that he is one of the Centre's published authors.

I hope you can resolve the dispute, and my ideal solution would be:
- The article is reinstated, and you can make any changes to it you deem appropriate.
- If there is anything substantial I object to or if I want to add new info, I shall contact you (or someone you might designate) instead of making changes directly.
- The one user who keeps objecting to the article should be asked to refrain from making changes directly, and instead go via you (or someone you might designate).

Thanks in advance.