Talk:Pierluigi Manciniart

This page was proposed for deletion by Jdcooper (talk · contribs) on 9 March 2024 with the comment:
Fails WP:GNG - insufficient independent sigcov to establish notability
It was contested by Denni045 (talk · contribs) on 2024-03-14 with the comment:
deleted the proposal of deletion of the article, since third-party fonts got added

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Denni045 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

COI tag (March 2024)[edit]

Declared in creator's userpage: User:Denni045 (was unable to move this to draft as we should by policy, as it was written by a COI editor, this may need to be addressed) ASUKITE 16:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns[edit]

Before remove real manciniart sculptures from museum and park..you should certificate your account Wikipedia since you are doing something important for the Wikipedia. Another Wikipedia s account accepted the Manciniart gallery 5.179.147.93 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama is absolutely clear that images of copyrighted sculptures or other works are not acceptable and the removal was precautionary. I know this can be confusing for new users because we do have many images of artwork, but that is because they are in the public domain, usually due to age. Please do not reinstate until discussions on commons have reached a resolution, thank you. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DDD9:68D1:5AA2:6A7C (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The images you see do not violate any freedom of panorama since every picture is a art being voluntarely exposed by the local comunity or owers of each place. Please identify yourself with an authorized account since that you look like having poor experience on wikipedia and look like lacking reliability. Denni045 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denni045 no one needs an account to edit, there is no such thing as an "authorized" account, in fact all usergroups are listed here; all members of the community are equal in matters of content, and no editing hierarchy is needed since compliance with policies and guidelines is what governs editing.

WP:COPYRIGHT is a policy, one with legal implications. Voluntary exposure of art is completely irrelevant under the relevant Japanese law, this has been discussed by experts in the area. Please read the relevant section on FoP, and note that in addition to Japan, neither Italy, nor the United States have FoP. In some cases where the artist has been dead for some time or the artwork was installed sufficiently long ago, the artwork itself will be in the public domain, in which case photographs of the artwork released under a compatible license will be OK, but neither of those applies here.

Please help us keep articles in compliance with local policies and real world law. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9CB3:F849:5062:30B9 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and notability concerns[edit]

Separately from the copyvio issues, the current sourcing is rather inadequate.

Source Evaluation
Source	Comment	Counts for GNG
[1]	Not WP:IS and too brief to be even WP:SIGCOV of the artworks anyway.	No
Tracciati d'Arte. 40 (page 21)	Likewise non-independent, not-SIGCOV	No
[2]	Again not SIGCOV, and the reprint from tracciatidarte mean all of these first three are really from the same source	No
[3]	Not independant, not clearly reliable, another description of the artwork.	No
Yomiuri Shimbun	Passing information on gallery, not SIGCOV of the article subject	No
[4]	Mentioned in a long list of names alongside many others.	No
[5]	Slightly more than some of the others in covering the subject still a very brief description of the subject in a lifestyle section, alongside descriptions of art.	Maybe
[6]	Mentioned in a long list of names alongside many others.	No

Overall the currently used sourcing does not show the article meets WP:GNG, so additional sourcing needs to be found. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DDD9:68D1:5AA2:6A7C (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information and source evaluation.

We will make

additional sourcing.

But this is not a battle. 151.25.52.169 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so long as the sources are out there so this can comply with the guideline there shouldn't be an issue. The important thing is to follow the policies and guidelines. Simply need to identify three WP:GNG compliant sources. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BD63:289D:19B4:1722 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are defining things by your point of view. How do you define all of those fonts non independent? And more over those are citations look closely to what they are used for. Lots of veterans users with tons of experience on wikipedia did not have problems with them and even thanked the addition of fonts. It is helpful of you trying to improve this article but you lack of reliability as a user since you do not have a propper account and your only edits are about war pages and strangely this article. 240B:10:C880:F200:4469:DF2A:3A01:CDFB (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incoherent. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9CB3:F849:5062:30B9 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice,

We try to improve this article.

We removed one GNG at the moment, and ceck the another too. 5.179.183.142 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Personally I prefer to allow plenty of time for these issues to be fixed, even a few months is not that long. That does not necessarily mean others will also take that view, and any page can be listed at WP:AFD at anytime subject to some common sense limitations. But even if the page is listed at AFD by someone you will still have additional time to fix it before the discussion is closed. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9CB3:F849:5062:30B9 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe part of the confusion arising here is the use of the word "fonts". I am guessing that various users from Italy are editing this talk page, using a translation program, that is improperly translating to "font" when the word we are looking for is "source" (i.e. a citation source). I hope that clears up at least some of the confusion in this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that partly clarifies what 240B:10:C880:F200:4469:DF2A:3A01:CDFB was attempting to say though the second part is still difficult to parse, limitations of machine translation I suppose. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E074:95DC:2FB8:2937 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]