Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gege Gatt (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I overturned a badnac the keep arguments are very weak and assertive. The source analysis is with the delete side and a convincing argument against the analysis has not been made. That this article suffers from puffery is clearly evidenced in the discussion and strong suspicions of a COI remain. Therefore losing this content is no loss to the project. If an established editor without a COI wants to turn their hand towards the article then I would encourage it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Gege Gatt
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Sources in article are either trivial mentions, or not independent of subject. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology,  and Malta. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete He's published articles in the Times of Malta, but that's all I can find for this person. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for your input, @Oaktree b. I appreciate your efforts in reviewing the sources. However, I would like to present several varied sources that support Gatt's notability, including academic publications. Gatt's notability is not solely dependent on his own published material, but also on contributions by others, impact, and recognition in the field. Here are some notable sources that establish Gege Gatt's notability:
 * "Çocuk, Oyun, Oyuncak Temalı Çalışmalar" edited by Prof. Dr. Derya Öcal, which touches on social individuality and the role of technology in the present day.
 * Several academic peer reviewed papers such as 'Agile...' (peer reviewers: Fabri, S., Cassar, V., Fabri JP, Fenech G, Spiteri, J;) publication and the inclusion of Gatt's condensed view on AI itself indicates Gatt's expert status and recognition in his field. So much so, that the publication is a 'scholarly article' published by the University of Malta: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/110560
 * Other journalistic publications (such as Forbes and The Telegraph) also covered his pioneering work in the digitisation of public healthcare and societal services
 * His work and key thesis are also published by the International Data Corporation (IDC) which is the premier global provider of market intelligence in their report on technology for island
 * As well as several books that carry directly or through third-party viewpoints Gatt's ideas on AI and technology, such as the President of Malta's State of the Nation 2021 book
 * These sources, among others, contribute to the evidence of Gatt's notability as an entrepreneur, IT lawyer, and thought leader in the field of artificial intelligence. They demonstrate his impact, recognition, and involvement in various fields beyond his own published articles. Therefore, I believe the provided sources establish Gatt's notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and are verifiable.
 * KEEP DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Some seems hard to verify, even given the (inadequate) sourcing. The writing in this article is not NPOV, the inclusion of this article is not NPOV. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I have moved all the material below up here to the first discussion, so it can be deleted by an admin. --Bduke (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - I respectfully disagree with the delete request and maintain that Dr. Gege Gatt satisfies the notability requirements stipulated by WP:BIO. I posit that the array of evidence presented supports his notability and that the provided articles and references may have been inaccurately classified as "trivial mentions", "hard to verify" or "not independent of the subject". Let's reconsider this in detail:
 * Substantial Coverage: Dr. Gatt's work has been extensively covered in several independent and reliable sources, both locally and internationally. His thoughts and work are addressed in the 'State of the Nation Report' by the President of Malta, a source of high credibility . His thoughts on AI and Society also features in a book on the Maltese media landscape titled, 'Navigating the Maltese Mediascape'. The significant coverage in these esteemed sources underscores his notability.
 * Independent Coverage: Dr. Gatt's work in AI philosophy and digital technology has received independent coverage in academic publications, such as a peer-reviewed publication at the University of Malta . His work has also been cited in other scholarly publications, demonstrating his influence in his field such as: and
 * Leadership and Impact: Dr. Gatt is not only a founder of EBO.ai but has been instrumental in driving its growth and accomplishments in the AI industry. His leadership at EBO.ai is linked to his notability, considering his notable contributions to AI which are translated into actual implementation and independently covered by various sources.
 * In this regard, Gatt's views are also carried by a key 2022 International Data Corporation (IDC) publication. IDC is the premier global provider of market intelligence.
 * Comparative Notability: When compared with other Wikipedia entries in the same field, Dr. Gatt's contributions and the level of independent coverage he has received are equivalent to, or even surpass those of other notable persons.
 * The sources provided offer significant and independent coverage of Dr. Gatt's work and contributions to his field, extending beyond "trivial mentions" and substantiating his notability. I recommend a careful reassessment of the evidence prior to making a decision on deletion.
 * "Our shared goal is to ensure that Wikipedia remains an accurate, comprehensive, and reliable resource. I firmly believe that Dr. Gatt's contributions to his field are pertinent to Wikipedia's global audience.
 * Let's continue this discussion with a broader array of voices and scrutinize the evidence comprehensively to reach a consensus that respects both Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the notable contributions of Dr. Gatt to his field.


 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalArchiver2020 (talk • contribs) 17:49, June 28, 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, DigitalArchiver2020, it seems you are knowledgeable on the subject, if you feel it meets WP:BIO, consider reading WP:BETTER and taking your hand at a full rewrite, with an understanding of neutral point of view. A problem with this current article is that it comes across like a resume/linked-in profile. Many editors are going to have trouble rewriting it due to the level of problems and a lack of knowledge (each claim needs to be verified in the citations, evaluated for inclusion and phrasing to preserve NPOV, and so on). A non-neutral point of view is an agreed upon valid reason for deletion, even if notability is eventually established. It can be tricky to learn the the right voice, most of us continue to learn, but it's vital to creating a good encyclopedia. &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Siroxo
 * Thank you for your response and valuable feedback. I appreciate your suggestions. I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view and ensuring that all claims are properly verified and supported by reliable citations.
 * I agree that constant refinement and possible section rewrites may be necessary. This is precisely why my stance is Keep (as 'Delete' would remove that opportunity and is a measure too far). As a contributor to Wikipedia, I am committed to creating a high-quality and unbiased encyclopedia. With the right feedback and the guidelines outlined in WP:BETTER there is no reason why the standards of neutrality and verifiability cannot be met (assuming they are not already met - I am keen to hear others on this).
 * I acknowledge the challenges involved in rewriting the article, and preserving a neutral point of view. However this is the point. I (and others) are willing to take on such tasks especially when covering notable individual from small member states (like Malta) where the content (and access thereto) is limited.
 * I am committed to contributing good quality content to this and other pages which is why I feel Keep is the right call. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Refine but not delete. More sources would be desirable, and more detail on his studies and thesis (plural). Mtonna257 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed @Matt0513. Thank you.
 * The KEEP approach is the sensible route as the recommendations you provided are pragmatic, possible and will be implemented. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:REFBOMB hurts an article like this, it doesn't help. Under publications, I open and read a magazine that has 5 authors - and he's not an author even though the page lists him as one. That's always a red flag that the rest of the sources aren't going to pan out.  Next, there is a profile on siliconvalletta, ok - that has promise... except it's a member profile.  "Silicon Valletta is an association set up by Malta based tech entrepreneurs."  He's been asked for comment about AI by local news sources, at this point - but that's not about him, it's about  AI.  The reason the article reads like a resume is there isn't in-depth coverage of HIM, as an individual, though he's given his opinion on technology to newspapers.  Denaar (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the concerns brought up by Denaar are noted, this article can be improved rather than deleted. It's important to note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, which Gatt has demonstrated through his significant contributions to the field of AI and digital technology, both nationally and internationally. The reference bomb issue can be addressed by curating and appropriately distributing references throughout the article (which I have been doing, and pledge to do). In terms of the publications, it's necessary to check each source individually, as authorship can be variable in academic or professional works. The siliconvalletta profile provides background on Gatt's position within Malta's tech scene. I agree that more in-depth coverage of Gatt as an individual would be beneficial. However, his regular appearances as an expert commentator on AI does attest to his reputation in the field. It's not uncommon for profiles of academics and professionals to focus on their work rather than their personal life. Overall, I believe this article needs improvement and better sourcing, but deletion is not the most productive step forward.
 * By way of factual correction the comment by Denaar which states: "Under publications, I open and read a magazine that has 5 authors - and he's not an author" is incorrect and misleading.
 * None of the 4 publications listed are 'magazines', but published books
 * Gatt does not claim to be the 'author' (save for the 4th book listed) but a key contributor on the topic of AI and technology in such book.
 * I have re-verified all 4 publications and can guarantee 100% Gatt's contribution therein. This is not a matter of subjective opinion but rather one of fact. Buying/downloading the books is a superbly easy way to attest to this matter.
 * DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete--really a puff piece with no secondary sourcing to prove his notability via the GNG or via NPROF. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While I note the points of Drmies about notability and sources, I'd argue that this article does not necessarily fall short of the General Notability Guideline or Notability for academics and persons in other fields of scholarship. Gatt's notability is evidenced by his substantial contributions to the field of AI and his frequent appearances as an expert commentator on technology, referenced by multiple sources including IDC, and cited in multiple articles, including Times of Malta , the National Broadcaster TVM , Newsbook , and others. These are recognised media outlets that provide secondary sources on Gatt's work and thought leadership.Regarding NPROF, it's crucial to note that criteria 1 and 6 can apply to Gatt's case. As the CEO of EBO.ai and his role in shaping AI policy and education in Malta, he's made significant contributions to his field which got noticed by Forbes . Moreover, he's also been recognised for his influence and thought leadership by significant publications including the President's State of the Nation Address for 2021 .I agree that the article requires further editing to align it better with Wikipedia's neutral point of view, but this does not detract from Gatt's notability. Therefore, the appropriate course of action would be to revise the article, rather than delete it.Also.. a gentle reminder to all to adhere to Wikipedia's "Do not bite the newcomers" policy. This article is an initial contribution from a newcomer, and any assistance from experienced editors to provide constructive feedback and guidance to improve the content will be much appreciated. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You get to vote ONCE. No one is biting, but at the same time it seems you're not listening, and you are not following the guidelines for participating in these discussions. Please see Articles_for_deletion, which is linked at the top of this page. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback, Drmies. My aim is not to disrupt the discussion or violate the guidelines but to ensure a balanced and informed debate. I appreciate the reminder of the policies, and I'm keen on complying with them. Let's continue to focus on the content and its improvement, in line with the guidelines for participating in AfD discussions. I certainly abide with the 'one vote' policy. My intervention here is only to correct factual inaccuracies which I have independently verified as this allows us editors to reach better informed decisions. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing: those guidelines also include the notice that any COI must be acknowledged. That you have one seems pretty clear, but I don't think you've declared it anywhere. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, Drmies. None of us stand to gain from the promotion of a page or another. Our interest in any subject matter is motivated by academic interest utilising the sources available to ensure the accuracy of the information provided. I am not affiliated with Gatt nor do I stand to gain from the promotion of his page. I am however interested in building more content about entrepreneurs and researchers on AI in Malta which is a tiny country in the EU and under-represented in Wikipedia. This page (which I did not create) is a first area of work - and Wikipedia's "Do not bite the newcomers" policy is doubly valid. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2023 (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.