Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Giliberti

Davide Giliberti

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep-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) This template must be substituted.

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 different degrees of success in enforcing their rules and standards due to the size of their editing communities — so what one Wikipedia "accepts" has no bearing on another one in and of itself. (I, for example, have had to go to the Portuguese Wikipedia in the past to alert them to a problematic hoax article that tied into a hoax we had discovered here on the English one — not because they were accepting hoaxes or anything, but because they simply hadn't seen the hoax before we did.)

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)[reply]

Keep-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) — Angela Owen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - problems with other articles do not excuse the problems with this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles is of great quality, it's true, but Boselli, Mancini and Ward all cite considerably more reliable source coverage than has been shown here — and while Calvani has no reliable sources right now, a simple Google search reveals that the necessary quality and depth of sourcing to repair it with does exist out there on the web. So no, none of them are equivalent to the article we're discussing here — and if any of them were, your singling them out would have resulted in them getting listed for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People mentioned they don't have nothin more than the sources of the article that i contributed to edit, those are only personal blog or gossip blogs , i still feel to say you guys are managing arbitrarily the right to delete or to keep people, you even put my account in the list of suspected sock puppet, i would like to suggest an article on this kind of behaviour , i'm sure you guys re gonna delete it as soon as it will be shared.Angela Owen (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Is an article talking about a mode and an actor nothing to see about people who did something notable for the humanity, is not even a biography.is more notable than many others publishied on wikipedia, give to the editors the possibility to work on it to improve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmiro Kunz (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Palmiro Kunz (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Note There's some ridiculous Sockpuppet editing taking place here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note someone who writes sock puppet on a formal document as wikipedia is, should be bannedPalmiro Kunz (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts on Wikipedia is Sock Puppetry and can lead to the loss of your editing privileges. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Exemplo points out, sock puppet is a standard internal Wikipedia term for a specific and very common type of Wikipedia policy violation. So nobody's getting banned for using the words "sock puppet" in a "formal" (pfffft) document — but somebody might get banned for doing sockpuppetry if they're not careful. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your response underline "ridiculous", it means you are talking from a personal point of view.It's true there are so many profiles or articles that are less notable but nobody delete, you can't say that other articles can't be seen as a parameter of reference, law is one and the same for all if you wanna keep your service with high sense of justice, otherwise could be easier to pay the editing production for the approval of the articles.Palmiro Kunz (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs to be improved you can 't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Togliatti (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Marco Togliatti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You think adding "references" to IMDb and YouTube videos is "improving" it? Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys didn't pay attention on most of the articles in references, they talk about his life and the job he did, of course there are cases where the awards or the merit was given to the project but if someone i part of this project i don't see why he shouln't talk about since he worked on it as wel.IMDb has many rules in common with wikipedia so is really credible source, you tube is just a video social networkMarco Togliatti (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We most certainly did "pay attention" to the references. References need to be to reliable sources, which means real media — they cannot be to social networking content like Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, they cannot be to Blogspot blogs, they cannot be to his own primary source profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and they cannot be to user-generated databases like IMDb. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If people can find sources which justify what is written should be kept, i found some new element and it doesn 't look not credibleNitin Bakar (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]