Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1918–1920 incidents at Spalato


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Ok, the article never should have been created in the first place. I'll grant that. We don't want banned users circumventing their ban and forcing us to fix the same shoddy work that got them banned in the first place. However, it seems it is possible to fix this, and indeed significant progress has already been made in that department, and I believe I have a workaround for the other issue. I have revdeleted everything done by the banned user on the spirit of denying recognition to long-term abusers. Now that we don't have to worry about that, the keep argument makes the stronger case. Merging or moving the page to another title is a discussion that can and should be had on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

1918–1920 incidents in Split

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research, NPOV problems, pretty much impossible to rescue in its current form, created by now-indefblocked community-banned editor User:NewPangea4. Even the framing of the article topic is POV: the placename chosen is inherently POV, and the incidents involved should be in some other article, reported in context of the military occupation, rather than as stand-alone "incidents". See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for more. -- The Anome (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: nomination amended to emphasize that the creator of the article was community-banned at the time of the article's creation. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the lead author of the article in it.Wiki. Of course, in this project you can make all the decisions you want. I would simply point out that Split was not military occupied by Italians in 1918-1920. Split was occupied by an international force, commanded by a US admiral.--Presbite (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, Necrothesp, I can't imagine anyone could read the article as it was ("fanatical Slavs") and honestly say they do not see any POV problems. I am inexorably driven to the conclusion that you did not really read the thing when you first posted, esp. since you've by now shifted your position from "I see no POV issues" to "maybe the article can be saved from those huge POV issues". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article seems to be about something real, however it is named.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm finding it difficult to accept the nominator's allegations of OR and POV. It seems decently referenced and a valid subject for an article. Where is the OR, please? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the section 1918–1920 incidents at Spalato carefully and see if you can answer that question for yourself. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, the nominator is taking a small section of the article which may fall under OR and instead of deleting that is using it as a "reason" to nominate the whole article for deletion. Glad that's cleared up! Sorry, but I think there's a bit of bias going on here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator is using WP:TNT reasoning here. It's not going to work, but the page does have a systematic pro-Italian, anti-Slavic slant. The OR there is just one facet of it. If you can't pick up on this, I'm not sure if you are well-informed enough for your !vote to be significant. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you stop the snarky remarks! Thank you. The page may have some POV issues, but not as many as some here would have us believe. And I'm afraid I can't help feeling that several of the pro-deletion advocates here have a "systematic" anti-Italian, pro-Slavic stance and would not really be happy with any article about or reference to these incidents! For the record, I have neither and my opinion is based solely on my reading of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look to my !vote; I am not one of these "pro-deletion advocates" of which you speak. I am merely pointing out that your original rationale (essentially "I don't see the POV/OR") is shaky. You asked to see the OR, and I pointed an example out to you. You have now retreated to the viewpoint of "well, there is some amount of OR and maybe there are a few POV issues". It's fine if you want to argue "keep" based on notability and such, but you'll have a much harder case if you take the standpoint of "This is a decent article with insubstantial POV/OR issues. It also has citations." Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will I? Who says? My opinion stands. It's up to the closer to consider the arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, so where are these systematic anti-Italian editors? Please don't go against the spirit of WP:AGF. I for example noticed the egregious issues with User:Brunodam's writing and behavior, but at the same time I'm not having any particular issue with User:Wukappa's numerous edits and articles about Italian history of Rijeka/Fiume etc - because the latter user's contribution does not violate WP:NPOV, whereas the former has a clear habit of that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not "going against the spirit of AGF". I'm just having a problem spotting anything near the amount of POV and OR that some editors are claiming and certainly I'm having difficulty seeing how the article is unsalvageable, which makes me wonder whether there may be an agenda in play here. And may I remind you we are looking at the article, not the writers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Necrothesp, we are "looking at the writer" since the writer is not allowed to write in the first place, as an indeffed (and soon-to-be-banned) Italian nationalist talking about "fanatical Slavic mobs" (among other things). Though it is interesting to see you attack users with accusations of "anti-Italianism", and then remind them to "look at the article". I can't imagine who those phantom figures might be - though I certainly hop it isn't me, since I am Italian by ancestry and have an Italian surname.
 * Strike that "soon-to-be" part - User:Brunodam was in fact banned in 2008. The relevant documentation has been updated/linked. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Potential keep -- The article has a lot of citations, but largely to Italian sources, and I do not know Italian.  It lloks as if  it has WP:RS, but I cannot say whether they are in fact such.  Historically the Dalmatian Coast was a Venetian possession; hence Italian, rather than Croatian (i.e. Austrian).  It concerns with events related  to the break up  of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire  and the allocation of its territoy to neighbouring  and successor states. If the use of the Italian place name  is considered inappropriate, it would be easy to rename  the article.  I would suggest that if the article is similar to that in Italian WP and that article is not being considered for AFD, this one should also be kept.  Possibly rename to  1918–1920 incidents at Split.  I would also dissent from the OR tag.  I do not feel qualified to comment on the POV tag, but if there is a POV issue, it should be resolved by editing not deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Potential keep - definitely an article in need of serious work. The name is awkward (and not just calling it Spalato rather than Split - 'incidents' is too vague), and it has significant POV issues, little effort being given at representing anything but an Italian perspective (e.g. population numbers are only discussed for Italians), and the grammar is not up to snuff, and it also has structural issues, but it looks like the event is authentic and that there are sufficient reliable (if biased) references to demonstrate notability. The only question is whether it can serve as a useful structure from which a decent article can evolve or if it would be better starting from scratch. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article does seem to suffer from a lot of bias, and the whole thing is completely taken out context when we consider it's not even mentioned at this point in Split, Croatia - possibly through no fault of its own, but it's still odd and not the right way to deal with the topic. The title looks slanted because I googled incidenti u splitu 1918 (Croatian translation) and didn't find anything on the first page, so it's clearly not a big standalone topic in the majority opinion on Split, but a scholar search does bring up a Croatian scientific article that examines stuff around the Treaty of Rapallo (1920) more generally and devotes one big paragraph to the events on "Puglia", describing the unrest as demonstracije - demonstrations. Something I found fishy in our article is how it mentions Rapallo in an introductory section, rather in an aftermath section - that always rings a kind of an alarm bell for me, that the author had a pre-concieved story in their head and didn't lay it out properly for the uninitiated reader - it's more likely to be a story told from their point of view rather than an actual unbiased historical description. In any event - lacking History of Split, History of Dalmatia sounds like a decent merge target -- sans the most egregious editorializing. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ow, now that I read some more history about User:Brunodam et al, I noticed Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia was also mentioned, and remembered that that one was fishy to me earlier, too (see what I wrote there in April). This is apparently just one in a long series of articles created basically to push this person's biased agenda (Italian irredentism). Now I'm all but convinced it should not be kept as is. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the more I read, the more I became convinced that this is a user who has consistently abused the good faith shown towards him by myself and others in the community. The incidents article qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD just like the numerous others. Merging the remaining factual and encyclopedic leftovers will be more than enough good faith effort in comparison with the disruptive circumstances of its creation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've tagged the article for rescue. However, I still think its material belongs elsewhere in an article with another title, such as, as suggested above, merged into History of Split or History of Dalmatia. -- The Anome (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nicely sourced historical article. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at what these sources say? Or did you just go "Hey, it has citations. They must be automatically reliable!" Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fix content issues with the normal editing process is what I'm saying. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you made the jump from complimenting this miserably POV article as "nicely sourced" to that, but.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that better? Carrite (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While the background of the article creator is a concern, it is not a reason for deletion. OR and NPOV problems seem to have been largely taken care of and are grounds for improvement, not deletion.  The much, much longer Italian article linked by Presbite shows that numerous independent sources exist to support notability of this subject. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, the NPOV problems have not been taken care of, I just had a look at the current revision and it includes e.g. "[...] the Italians of Split [...] were harassed by Croatian nationalists continuously, as has happened since the end of the XIX century in all Dalmatia" and references that with http://xoomer.virgilio.it/histria/storiaecultura/testiedocumenti/bombardieritesti/particolari_dalmazia.htm which appears to be a transcript of a document dated 1919 named "Martyrdom of Dalmatia", on what seems to be a random personal website. Exceptional claims require high-quality sources - this is an egregious policy violation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The background of article creator is not just a concern - given that they were banned in 2008, WP:CSD should have applied - the only edits between Brunodam's two socks (User:NewPangea4 and 98.64.233.103 signed as himself) and the AfD were these insignificant cleanups. Had the nominator properly tagged it for speedy deletion instead, that would have been the end of it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Potential keep, but needs major work. This is certainly a topic worthy of an article, but it needs major purges of POV material (persistent pro-Italian, anti-Slavic slant) as well as just general cleanup. Those who have claimed that this is somehow a well-put-together article or that they "can't see" violations of NPOV either haven't read the article closely or are just completely illiterate when it comes to nationally-motivated disputes. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, or merge into History of Dalmatia. Yes I certainly agree major work is necessary here, but that "major work" amounts to writing up an entire article, virtually from scratch. A lot of the sock's sources are known to be biased, almost all are in Italian without page references, and by a community-banned sockpuppeteer notorious for falsely quoting sources in different languages - the whole thing needs to be redone. I know a bit about the subject, and I am frankly appalled at the depth of POV displayed here - the title itself is POV. As it looks now, I really can't let the article stand as it is (simply removing all the nationalist nonsense would make the text incoherent), but neither do I have the time to research and write an entire article. Further, while the sock did make it out like this was some "big deal" - the events here are an incredibly insignificant subject, obscure even for natives of the city. More than anything, not deleting this sock-article amounts to the banned user forcing Wikipdians to write-up articles that he wants to see written, and that he "judges" should stand separately. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the seventeen references given, all but three have page numbers. Obviously it's hard to check the accuracy of these references, but please don't make incorrect claims to back up your case. It really doesn't help. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes obviously it doesn't help, Necrothesp, it was a mistake (comment stricken). The rest of the problems still stand. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename the page in 1918–1920 incidents at Split In 1918 the city has already changed his official name from "Spalato" to "Split". --Grifter72 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Folks, if the consensus is that this article needs plenty of work, then I suggest someone volunteers to do it if he or she thinks the article needs to be kept - because we all know this obscure irrelevant nonsense isn't about to attract a host of informed, spontaneous editors repairing POV anytime soon. The bottom line is that this is a sock article, and that keeping it essentially allows for community-banned users to post on Wikipedia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would suggest that we need an article on the Adriatic Question to deal with former Austro-Hungarian territories disputed between Italy and Yugoslavia immediately post-World War I. The articles on d'Annunzio's little adventure and the Free State of Fiume would be subarticles; this article could either be merged or kept as a subarticle. I'm mostly concerned that if the article is deleted nobody will start from scratch, since if somebody will, why not just rewrite the current one? Srnec (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So your !vote is more of a merge than a keep then :) On a similar note, I recently merged Impresa di Fiume into the aforementioned article about d'Annunzio's upheaval. The question is whether the entire slanted story warrants a separate article when the relevant sections of History of Dalmatia don't actually exceed size limits. In the case of short-lived states, the clear justification for separate articles is that their nature makes them distinct from general historical articles, but these topics are general, and splitting them from the general history as we do now looks as if we're creating two parallel threads of history articles, which wouldn't make sense at all. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to Srnec's argument: mostly concerned that if the article is deleted nobody will start from scratch – well, yes, quite likely nobody will. But the argument works the other way round. If we keep these kinds of articles, we are essentially blackmailing the few good-faith editors who have the knowledge and interest to deal with this thing into investing their work in an article they don't actually want. We're forcing them to either let a painfully unacceptable article sit unchanged, or invest a huge amount of work they quite likely would prefer investing elsewhere. In other words, we are empowering the banned user to define everybody else's work agenda. We shouldn't be doing that. Banned means banned, and if no good-faith user wants to work on this topic on their own accord, neither Brunodam nor anybody else should have the power to make them do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a good-faith editor and I do not feel blackmailed by myself. I was unaware of the status of the user who created the article and I don't really care much. If the article's content were a hoax, completely false, or if the article was about a non-notable topic, then I would vote delete, but since the article as it is is neither a hoax, nor completely or even mostly false after recent edits and the topic is notable, I see no reason to delete. It's better to work on it and recognise that even a bad-faith user can contribute something the rest of the community can redeem. Maybe it should have been speedied, but it wasn't. Now we're here and I don't think the status of the banned user is relevant any longer. Let the community (and the closing admin) decide. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nonsense title is the least of the problems Grifter. Who's going to fix this thing? Or I should say write anew this thing since its entire concept and structure is POV. Who's going to properly research this obscure event and go around cleaning-up the sock's messes? This article is by no means the first, or only current such POV-pushing attempt. And why should the banned guy/his socks be allowed to place "work orders" here on enWiki?
 * Delete per DIREKTOR. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Anyone having doubts whether these sort of sock articles should go or not, ought to have a look at the current Mass-scale ban evasion thread on WP:ANI. This is just the latest in a a series of about a dozen articles (and counting) this sockpuppeteer has created to game the system. This article should in fact be speedily deleted per general criteria G5. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to History of Dalmatia and Dalmatia, after reducing this material to remove POV and smaller incidents. Binksternet (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's also an option I could support (for the record) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't grant this sockpuppeter the satisfaction of having his garbage preserved, even if it's just in the page history. Most of the material is objectively unuseable. If anybody in the future wishes to write something legitimate about these events afresh, be it as a new standalone article or as part of some other article, they can do so, but they won't be in need of this low-quality material in doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comments (voted Keep) above. Merging into a parent article should not be an option.  It may well need work, but that is a reason for keeping (but with tags) not deleting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you man: if you want to labour at the sock's behest, or know someone who will, then we might talk. I'm not kidding, if this thing is kept the first thing I'm going to do is blank all sock text. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merging is a legitimate result of a WP:AFD discussion, and supporting a merge of relevant parts of a broken article into a more general article is not implicitly the same as supporting keeping a broken article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - There might be an article to be written about this, but given the article's content and history, the solution is to WP:BLOWITUP. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well sourced historical fact. Captain Gulli was awared in 1920 with the Gold Medal of Military Valor. The facts are still remembered (Francesco Perfetti is a renowed acedemic in Italy), even in Croatia.--Presbite (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot the American press, a more complete view, a real feuilleton, some minor facts, and so on....--Presbite (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So can you then rewrite the article to properly demonstrate its standalone notability, rather than just assert it (while implicitly supporting the banned user)? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article, after the last modify of DIREKTOR, is now aseptic. It doesn't need to be rewrited. G5 is not applicable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1918%E2%80%931920_incidents_in_Split&action=history --Grifter72 (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's aseptic yet - the title is still a fair bit incoherent with the content. It talks about incidents in Rijeka, Zadar, Trogir, Kaštela, in addition to Split and with similar prominence to the latter, but only Split is in the title, which looks biased. User:Srnec's suggestion to explain the events in wider context of the "Adriatic Question" looks much more coherent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should mention that this article reminds me of the infamous Zadar Kristallnacht article. That was also an article created by propagandists who picked the title of a single riot and made a really shoddy article that was also entirely out of context. That one was also grossly unreferenced. Once the context was added, it became apparent that it didn't make much sense to explain the riot on its own. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this referenced article? A simple translation could be OK?--Presbite (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you write a decent article, that's fine. Mind, I still don't see the title as a preferable description of the context, because from your own bibliography, and even disregarding the titles from Slavic-sounding authors, we see that the Italian authors by and large don't just talk of the city of Split but of Dalmatia and the World Wars context in general. Do consider a more general frame, because on the English Wikipedia we probably don't have the same amount of context that the Italian Wikipedia probably does. As has been pointed out several times now :) the article History of Dalmatia basically has no mention of this, and it can easily be a set of sections there, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the article history of Dalmatia we can't see a huge amounts of Dalmatian events/people, like the treaty of Vis, the Diet of Dalmatia, Antonio Bajamonti, and so on. The title is sourced in Italian ("Incidenti di Spalato") and English ("Riots in Spalato"). Have a look to my links, please!--Presbite (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, so let's concentrate on fixing the main historical timeline rather than working off specific incidents that are easily taken out of context? Also, book search for "Incidenti di Spalato" gives 18 results, zero results for "Riots in Spalato". I still fail to see the downside in integrating this content into more established generally titled articles. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could read my links:
 * Jugoslav attacks on Italians
 * Spalato Riot
 * Spalato in Dalmatia reported scene of disturbance
 * Street fighting at Spalato
 * Clash between Italians and Jugoslavs at Spalato
 * Disorders at Spalato
 * Recent fighting (at Spalato and Trieste)
 * Enough?--Presbite (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow... not even close actually :). You are aware thats just one newspaper, one source? Maybe we should post 25 links to separate pages of one publication and pretend its an indicator of notability? In reality Joy found more than you did with the Books search and its measly result (18 hits), and its still woefully unimpressive. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your sarcasm. Sorry.--Presbite (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Although I have no idea what you're talking about. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 04:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the riots/incidents/disorders/disturbances at Split. No idea? I'm very, very sorry.--Presbite (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rise, Presibite: you are forgiven. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Amon.--Presbite (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Presbite, the good. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Ample news coverage exist. AFD is not cleanup.  If you have a problem with parts of the article, then discuss it on the talk page, and work out an action solution, don't just try to destroy something with the hopes that someone will come along and rewrite the entire thing from scratch and it'll be to your liking.   D r e a m Focus  08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "liking" involved here - the fact is that the entire text of the article was written by a user who has been permanently banned by the community three years ago. Please read Banning policy. This is not a typical AfD where only content and the topic is examined - you also have to elaborate a common-sense reason to ignore this policy. (Granted, further edits make this point moot, but I still had to counter this kind of "why are you destroying stuff" argument.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * G5 applies here and the speedy template should have been applied from the start. A superficial look at the history seems to suggest otherwise, but in actual fact 99% of the edits following the last modification by Brunodam's IP (of 03:35, 22 April 2011) do NOT constitute contributions by other users but are for the most part the removal of offensive and insulting text. Should these edits, in actuality mere "damage-control" due to the offensive nature of the text, be interpreted as the expansion of the article by non-socks? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - raze and rebuild. When an article is built upon such suspect foundations a sentence-by-sentence examination (particularly one based on sources not in the language of the wiki variant it appears on) is not practical. And that's completely setting aside the very valid issue that the article is made by a long-term sock who shouldn't be allowed to make articles of any sort until his block is removed. Suggest it be deleted, and a request for a from-scratch version be added to WP:ITALY and to the appropriate "Requested articles" list; the concept is quite valid and interesting, but on both a policy and practical level this text should not be preserved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: "the article is made by a long-term sock who shouldn't be allowed to make articles of any sort until his block is removed." Which isn't going to happen; User:Brunodam, the sockmaster of the puppet who created the article, is banned. (You could argue twice, if the aborted voting in the recent AN/I subject, that was unanimous until it was realised he was already banned, is counted...) - The Bushranger One ping only 16:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.