Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Giliberti


 * 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. Despite the valiant efforts of a number of sock- and/or meatpuppets, Mr. Giliberti has not been shown to pass the GNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Davide Giliberti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * 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)
 * even if i could be one of his relative i don't see where is the problem if everything is proved and doesn't affect any other article or the truth of the events describes in it. Yes i could be simply an homonym but you don't even consider it as good to leave the article or at least to contribute for the editing.PasqualeGiliberti (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Our conflict of interest rules militate against people writing articles about themselves, their own relatives or friends, their own business endeavours, and on and so forth. We're not an advertising platform, and people tend to not be objective about themselves and their own professional and personal associations — so our articles need to be written by people fully independent of the topic, not by the subject or his brother. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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) — PasqualeGiliberti (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)

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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - problems with other articles do not excuse the problems with this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete - Non-notable person who does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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) — Palmiro Kunz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note someone who writes sock puppet on a formal document as wikipedia is, should be bannedPalmiro Kunz (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note There's some ridiculous Sockpuppet editing taking place here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You think adding "references" to IMDb and YouTube videos is "improving" it? Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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) — Nitin Bakar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep to allow everybody the same rights!PasqualeGiliberti (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)PasqualeGiliberti (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What "rights" would those be, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This "talk space" is just a way to cheat on people cause you don't give even the possibility to express themselves to people since you publish or delete whatever you want, and you Bearcat are the only one that on Davide Giliberti page are putting flags and impediments like you think you re gonna change the world with your actions, we will edit an article where we re gonna talk about wikipedia administrators and when you guys re gonna send the request to donate money to save your service we re gonna talk about how is partial your policy, starting to talk about all the pages that still are on wikipedia with no evidencesPasqualeGiliberti (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely meatpupperty, the user above says "we". Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet basic notability threshold. There's very little reference to him (in any language). Claims in the article that he was a main character in various movies is not supported. IMDB lists him as "uncredited" in three movies. Many of the reference links are either dead or do not contain any reference to him.Glendoremus (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above user Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, notability, vanity, self-promotion MiracleMat (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete an actor and model who does not meet the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2017 (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.