Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Chiumiento


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Chiumiento

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO as this particular person does not seem to have received any notice outside of the WP:FRINGE ufology community. jps (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Called a UFO "expert" who is "known for over 35 years" . Book review Livres hebdo, Issues 708-712. Most sources are in Italian and can be found searching "site:.it" via Google however it's a slog translating through 100s of hits. These are some found by random. Likely many more sources offline since he has been active for 35 years. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. News coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ..not impressive in English. See sources and links above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is fairly limited; e.g., the second link in German is to an unrelated subject. The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we may fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources of notability for certain subjects. As for their language, it certainly does not have to be English, but the subject should ideally have an WP article in their language (see Xxanthippe's remark below).--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not confined to English sources, online sources, or existence on foreign Wikipedia. Many of the smaller Wikipedia's are chaotic, editors often work here instead or addition to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourcing in Italian is enough to pass GNG, per links above and some assertions of notability in those sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest we wait until there is an article in the Italian Wikipedia. Such would indicate his notability in his own culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC).
 * In this case since there are sources we probably should judge based on the sources and WP:GNG rather than the heuristic of existence on Italian Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources you provide above are inadequate for Wikipedia. At best they mention him in passing. One is a dead link. Again, if he is not notable enough for the Italian Wikipedia he is unlikely to be so for the English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Unless there was a previous AfD, not much should be concluded about a missing topic on a foreign Wiki. There are structural reasons why we often see articles created on the English but not native country Wikis. For example some of the smaller Wikis are chaotic, run by cliques and whim, so editors end up here with more constitutional and orderly processes in place. I know that is the case in Poland for example (rumored anyway), but don't know about Italy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Of the sources presented: is credulous coverage of a conference. I'd also be curious to see someone try and squeeze more than a sentence out of that in an article.  minimal coverage, not sure what one would use.  also passing coverage.   is also creduluous in its coverage. None have the capacity to provide any encyclopedic content on this person. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the sources are reliable, if scant mention, and one is a book review per AUTHOR #3. I suspect more sourcing is out there in Italian, if anyone wants to help to look. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2013 (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.