Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Bernardi


 * 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. Lourdes  07:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Bernardi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article nominated for deletion because: no indication of importance WP:A9; fails notability test WP:N; no reliable sources WP:RS; violation of "What Wikipedia is Not" WP:PROMO (see talk comments from subject of article). — IshtayaKulah (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as the rationale offered for deletion doesn't meet muster. (a) WP:A9 is for articles about musical recordings.  (b) The notability guideline requires reliable sources over time, which this article has in spades.  (c) I'm having a difficult time finding unreliable sources in the article, much less vice-versa.  (d) Might it have a promotional tone?  Sure, but that's a job for tone, not AFD.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  15:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep After sorting through the extensive list of references and finding that more than half of them are unverifiable, are sources that quote Bernardi rather than being about Bernardi, or are publications by or interviews with Bernardi, I think the amount and depth of coverage that still remains in this version is enough to support a pass of WP:GNG. The article still needs significant cleanup (in particular, there are no inline references indicating which claims of the article can be matched up against which sources) but it's not in bad enough shape for WP:TNT to apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete on account of total lack of inline citations. A well put-together text but that on its own cannot justify inclusion. If work is not done, the contested article becomes a case of personal work. -The Gnome (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eppstein's rational provided above. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete due to weak, unreliable sourcing much of which relies on internal SFSU websites or promotional material. This in turn impairs ability to test for WP:A7.  A list of books edited or published is not sufficient for passing notability threshold. In addition, "Career" overly detailed and irrelevant.  Also, as noted, no inline references at all.  And, what is "Sources Quoting Bernardi"? These should either be integrated into "Career" and "Bibliography" and or inline references.  Finally, deletion for WP-PROMOTION: note contributions of 76.126.70.179, which are solely devoted to SFSU Cinema Dept. or Daniel Bernardi, and ditto for 130.212.73.54; also notice original page and comments on talk page giving direct instruction as to how page should be written, i.e. "(see if you can't add a short quote and thus a reference from the introduction to The Birth of Whiteness -- perhaps the one where I say there are no white people, only people that pass as white -- something catchy.)" . Obviously, the "I" is the subject of the article.  Egregious violations of WP-PROMOTION, especially in this era of "fake news."
 * Preceding unsigned comment added by IshtayaKulah (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)  Ambox warning pn.svg
 * Duplicate vote: IshtayaKulah (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
 * IshtayaKulah (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Bad-faith nomination; no evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed; no genuine policy-based reason to delete put forth by this "new" user. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Four policy reasons were advanced in nomination (see above). These are discussions, not votes.  Also, wise to remember Arguments to make in deletion discussions and especially, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which includes the following: "Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help."  Thank you. IshtayaKulah (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This obvious sock-puppet SPA has now attempted to vote thrice in the same discussion — it's about time to put a stop to this chicanery. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking off complete input by nominator per WP:DISCUSSAFD (Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion. Nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.). -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Under normal circumstances, I would say the comments could stand as written, with only the bolded votes being stricken, but as this user is an obvious sock, WP:IAR and everything... Joefromrandb (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Duplicate votes should be stricken and, when they are, then leaving up just their reasoning makes no sense; it only confuses matters and makes the closer's work difficult. BTW, I believe WP:IAR should be invoked only in extreme circumstances. (I've never used it in all my years here.) I consider it something of a cop-out, since we have rules a-plenty and they cover practically everything. -The Gnome (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do, and yes, they do; WP:IAR is about breaking those "rules a-plenty". In any case, my point was, that while it's not the way I would have handled it, I have no objection to the action you took. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2018 (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.