Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Giliberti

Davide Giliberti

Davide Giliberti (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)

Delete. WP:BLP, written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of a person who has potentially valid notability claims but isn't sourcing them properly. The referencing here is almost entirely to blogs and primary sources rather than to reliable source coverage in media -- and the only thing here that does count as a reliable source is not about him, but merely namechecks his existence briefly in coverage of something else. As well, this was created by a user named "PasqualeGiliberti", and therefore likely a direct conflict of interest (maybe a brother or cousin? maybe his own middle name? etc.) -- and in addition, Pasquale copied and pasted it directly from a draftspace page without submitting it for the WP:AFC review needed to actually graduate it to mainspace. It can continue to be improved in draftspace if possible -- but there's not enough sourcing here to get it a mainspace pass, and there's not enough "inherent" notability here to exempt him from the sourcing requirements. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Note as well that the article creator also tried to blank this AFD and to remove the template from the article entirely. As always, this is not legitimate Wikipedia process — the creator is allowed to express an opinion in the discussion, but does not have the right to unilaterally shut the process down in advance of a conclusion one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• This article already has been approved on wikipedia Italy respecting the general common rules for wikipedia, is impartial and based on real sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasqualeGiliberti (talk • contribs)

Firstly, being "approved" on one language Wikipedia does not constitute an automatic approval on all language Wikipedias — for one thing, I can find no evidence that its suitability for inclusion on the Italian Wikipedia has ever been discussed at all, rather than it simply flying under the Italian Wikipedia's deletion radar because none of the responsible editors have noticed it yet. And for another, different Wikipedias have different rules and different standards.

And secondly, the sources in the article are mostly either primary sources or dead links whose content is gone and unverifiable — which means they're mostly not reliable sources that we can actually accept. And the only one that is a valid source is not about Davide Giliberti, but just namechecks his existence one time in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• most of sources talk about his career or they refer to his works directly connected with their success or realization, i find unfair you can use this instrument arbitrarily while i see for other subjects they have poorer sources but you allow them to stay on it as for refinement you can see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Boselli or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Mancini or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Ward_(model) , we could go ahead for so many other examples such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Calvani. You just are blocking the natural flow of informations cause is not even possible to write anything moreAngela Owen (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)