Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco Fiorito


 * 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 no consensus has emerged since the relist. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Franco Fiorito

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Doesn't deserve a page at WP. Beasteggs (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. There is an article on the Italian Wikipedia, which is a lot longer and cites a lot more references than this — but given what a cursory attempt this is, it's fairly clear that the creator's intention had less to do with writing a proper article about a notable politician and more do do with shining a floodlight on the corruption allegation that they chose to single out as the only thing they said about him at all besides "he exists". This is giving the allegation WP:UNDUE weight, however: people who were not already notable before being accused of a crime do not clear the bar on the accusation itself. Properly contextualized in a longer, properly sourced article which properly establishes that he was already notable in the first place, we're allowed to mention criminal allegations — but we do not create articles just to foreground untried and unconvicted criminal allegations as the basis for a person's notability in and of itself. But I cannot read Italian, so I cannot determine whether the Italian article actually establishes that he would clear our notability standards — being sindaco (i.e. mayor) of a small town is not particularly promising, and the Italian article problematically includes ten references to YouTube videos, which is ten more than any Wikipedia article should ever be citing. So I'm not 100 per cent certain that he would be notable even with a full translation of the existing Italian article, and would need to see the actual finished product before I gave my final verdict on that — but in the meantime, what I am 100 per cent certain of is that if a stub that's just 37 words long devotes nine (or 25 per cent) of those words to calling the subject corrupt, that's wildly inappropriate and needs to be deleted on WP:BLP grounds. So even if he is actually notable enough for an article, this version should still be blown up and restarted from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment : Hello, thanks for the long comment. Well, I didn't mention the 'corruption' part only to highlight that 'he exists' and is 'corrupted'. But when I looked him up, max of the sources only talked about his corruption. If that's the problem, I think I can delete that part and expand more, adding more substantial information on the subject. Otherwise, okay to let it be thrashed and built again as suggested.

Exploreandwrite (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:COAT. Right now, the allegations, not the biography, are highlighted. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep He appears to pass WP:NPOL (if we assume Italian regional councils = state parliaments) and WP:GNG in Italian sources from the Italian wikipedia alone (, for instance, and another newspaper interviewed his mother. See also and . Possible it's a WP:BLP1E, though, and terrible stub as it stands. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with a fully-rounded article that was properly written and properly sourced and made a clear WP:NPOL-passing notability claim — but the WP:BLP sensitivities here, namely the complete and total focus on a corruption allegation to the total exclusion of any discernible substance about any other aspect of his political career whatsoever, mean we can't keep this in its current form just because somebody might eventually get around to improving it. If nobody's prepared to tackle improving it immediately, then we have to delete it and wait for somebody to properly write and properly source a better article, because it can't stand in this form. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd do it, but I'm not great with the Italian language.Still, he's clearly notable enough for Wikipedia, and the WP:BLP problems are mitigated by the fact he's at least arguably a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and what appears to be his sentencing was apparently widely publicised. It's kind of unique, this one, since I think notability's so clearly satisfied, but the article is incredibly short and poorly written, as opposed to the usual WP:GNG where notability is the primary concern. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting the problematic version would not prevent somebody from writing the good version afterward, though. Deletion isn't a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article; it's just a judgement on the version of the article that's currently in front of us, and I believe the BLP implications here are serious enough to warrant the WP:TNT treatment if nobody's prepared to tackle repairing them right away. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I respect your record at AfD, but I disagree with you pretty substantially here. In general, we delete articles that either fail WP:GNG and WP:NOT. While short and poorly written, this subject currently passes WP:GNG/WP:V, and therefore WP:STUB. He also passes WP:NPOL arguably (with the argument being regional Italian parliamentarians are equivalent to state parliamentarians in other jurisdictions, which I have no opinion on.) I'm also not sure which WP:NOT he would fail, though it's not impossible he'd be deleted on some sort of BLP grounds. Draftifying should only be used when articles need work to pass notability or sourcing guidelines, which isn't the case here - it should not be used to quasi-delete notable yet poor stubs. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Topics can also be deleted, and forced to be recreated from scratch, for reasons quite independent of their basic notability: copyright violations; creation by banned users; grossly unbalanced attack pages that are putting far too much weight on the negative aspects of the person's biography rather than the positive ones but are not being cleaned up in a timely fashion. As long as this focuses solely on the corruption allegations, while completely eliding any substance or sourcing about any other aspect of his career whatsoever, for all intents and purposes it's an attack page. We only have two options here, clean it up immediately or enact TNT, and "keeping it in its existing form just because it might eventually get cleaned up someday" is not on the menu. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up a bit, adding his parliamentary career and changing the allegations to discuss his sentencing. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Draftify per WP:DRAFTIFY to allow time for reliable sources to be found to establish notability and bring balance (WP:BALANCE) to the article - Epinoia (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as a stub. Easily passes WP:GNG. AFD is not a witch hunt for stubs.4meter4 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Stubbiness isn't the problem here. WP:PERP is. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per request.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412  T 12:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not really sure WP:UNDUE is a problem here, he was ordered to return €1.09 million worth of public funds, sentenced to almost three years in gaol, stereotypes of Italian politics aside, this is  not a common occurrence. Nicknamed "Batman", still discussed in the Italian press in the context of his corruption. Highly symbolic of the Berlusconi era. Clearly meets WP:PERP #1 (national) and #2.  No problems with WP:RS, plenty of coverage over multiple years in newspapers of record. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2019 (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.