Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guido Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino-Caluso Peyretti di Condove


 * 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. Closed early per IAR. Not only was AcademieIT the only substainial editor to the article and requested deletion, it also seems that this is a tie in to a hoax. Come on people... there were two perfectly good CSD criteria sitting in front of your face. There was no reason to keep this AFD open. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 06:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Guido Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino-Caluso Peyretti di Condove

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete: Though this article was in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, descendants of the subject of the article asked for its immediate removal on this basis: 1. the right of privacy 2. they have no interest their father/grandfather is listed here or anywhere I agreed that they have a right to protect their story and name, and that this article must be put into consideration of removal, as an administrator denied the speedy deletion. I think nor I nor Wikipedia can stop them of the right to make their life private. AcademieIT (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This person is notable. If someone has a good reason to request its administrative deletion should contact the Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs)
 * Keep see new comments below, although what I said here is still true as well. No valid reason to delete the article is presented. To make an extreme example, I'm sure John Wayne Gacy would like to see a lot of the content of his article removed as it reflects very badly on him, but if it is based on reliable sources there is no reason to remove it. How can their be any sort of violation of the right to privacy when the article is based on previously published material? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly!--Karljoos (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Previous attempts, such as the invalid CSD placed by the nominator against this article late yesterday, indicate that the nominator clearly has no idea about the rules for keeping / deleting something from the encyclopedia. To the best of my knowledge, the family and or descendants have no right to ask us to remove a page for any reason.  If there are inaccuracies, I could understand it, but we have pages on here which people have attempted to remove before, via legal means.  The subect is notable, and this article must stay.  Barking Fish  Talk to me | My contributions 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep First, even if the person were still alive and wished it deleted, there would be no basis for doing so, as he is clearly notable, not borderline. Second, the survivors have no right to even contest it--works of reference could not exist if this were permitted. Possibly the descendants of Stalin might want his article removed also.  Even if we did think it relevant, we would still need to ask whether all of the descendants want it removed: he apparently has many children and grandchildren, and it is quite rare for them all to agree on family privacy concerns.   Beetlebrox is however not quite right by saying the existence of previous published sources prevents deletion--it optionally can  for a living person who was borderline notable and requested it,, and it can for any living person under DONOHARM, if the matter falls under the limitations of that provision (minor derogatory information unrelated to notability , and not very widely publicised--neither of which apply here in the slightest). The only relevant BLP consideration, is that his children, if living, have the right to have the day but not the year of their birth removed, if they ask via OTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't say having sources prevented deletion, I questioned the validity of the argument that this violates their privacy since the information has already been published. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The descendants want the photograph deleted and their names in the "issue" section... It was one of their reasons, arguing "privacy". If this is possible, I'm sure the rest of the article can stay. Otherwise, I'm sure they will contact the foundation. AcademieIT (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the photograph is in the public domain, as you well know since you uploaded it. Anyone can use it for anything they wish and there is frankly nothing his descendants can do about that. Removing the names of his offspring may have some merit, if they are not notable on their own there is now real reason for them all to be listed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The picture 'seemed' to be in public domain, but it isn't: it was included in a 1984 copyrighted booklet published in Italy privately that I've learnt off, which is credited to his eldest daughter and copyrighted. I saw this big picture hanging on a wall when I visited their luxurious villa in Italy and took a shot of it with my camera (with their permission). As far as I knew when uploading it to Commons was that it had not been copyrighted in any way. Now I know the contrary. I'm sure that if the picture is removed and the references to his issue, they won't have claims to attack the entry or Wikipedia. It's all about finding a peaceful solution that benefits Wikipedia, without having to delete the entry, of course, as everyone wants it to stay (including me) because it has merit. AcademieIT (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is notable, and the material well sourced and accurate, so there are no grounds for deletion. The only concern I have is that the image was taken "in the 1940s", which would possibly make it not freely licenced. Inductiveload (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a possible hoax unless somebody other than User:AcademieIT can verify that the sources cited support this article. While the family may exist, the individual is questionable: . Following a complaint to OTRS from a German researcher indicating that this contributor was manufacturing fake articles under this name and User:Academie (2009121810004629), a source check of some of his contributions failed. For instance, the now-deleted Louise Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld was sourced in part to 1975's I granduchi di Toscana della casa Asburgo-Lorena. Obscure, but an OTRS agent who had access checked it and found no mention of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld. She also found that the book only covered events up to 1859. According to that article, the subject lived from 1882-1957. Her parents were born in 1854 and 1856, respectively. Two articles by this contributor, that one and Prince Ferdinand Rainieri Habsburg-Lorraine, have been deleted as hoaxes by two separate administrators. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note in terms of verifiability that Max Vergara Poeti, by this contributor, has also been nominated by him under the claim that somebody disputes its inclusion (in that case, the subject himself), and that in investigating the notability of that individual DGG found that one of the works sourced to him is listed at WorldCat as by another author: "WorldCat includes nothing by the author, and none of the titles, except "Seis poemas de Robert Frost" for which they list another person as responsible, and give the date of publication as 1963 not 2002." (Articles for deletion/Max Vergara Poeti). This raises further questions of credibility for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per MRG Avi (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles mentioned by (talk) which were in fact deleted were the product of misleading sources, and that was how I recognized to both administrators and this can be checked in their talk pages. But they were never made in bad faith or with the express intention to "create hoaxes", as the Moonriddengirl is stressing. I assume all good faith in everyone, and this discussion is not envolving myself by this article which the descendants want eliminated, period. We're not discussing here things that had been already sorted out, or myself. That is not objective. AcademieIT (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is entirely objective to request that somebody other than you verify this information in the article's given sources, given indications that you have placed material that cannot be verified in the sources you have used. If the material is unverifiable or inaccurate, it does not belong here no matter the purpose of its creation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With due respect that is not the topic of this deletion debate. But, if it HELPS to delete the article ASAP, whatsoever the claim, then you're most welcomed. I wrote too, the article on Archduke Heinrich, and that had not problem at all, as I've contributed to many other articles. What I argue is that you just can't generalize a mistake trying to show me in bad faith to other members. I have the right to defend myself, and I don't have any other problems and will glad to see you on this debate, as your opinion counts a lot Moonriddengirl. AcademieIT (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion of this debate is whether it is proper to retain this article. A number of people have argued that it is, and I would agree that it would be if the facts are verifiable. I think it is entirely germane to note that the facts may not be, in fact, verifiable. In terms of your other articles, I see that the facts have been challenged at Talk:Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino as well, a challenge that you have twice blanked. (I have restored it. Even if you have removed that challenged material, talk pages are archives, and blanking the relevant comments of others on an article talk page is inappropriate.) You are certainly welcome to defend yourself, and I hope that somebody will be able to access the sources of this and your other articles to stand up in your defense. Lacking such independent verification, I believe that this article should be deleted as a possible hoax. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you also removed a question of authenticity from this article's talk page, which I have restored. Again, you should not remove valid content from article talk pages. And perhaps you might consider that removing comments suggesting impropriety in your own edits might seem suspect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is starting to make me dizzy. The user who nominated the article now has said they want it kept. But maybe they misinterpreted/misrepresented the facts from the sources, and the photograph they claimed was public domain is actually a photo they took of another photo that is in fact private property. And the alleged privacy violation is the result of reprinting information that was originally published by the very people who are now claiming their privacy is being violated. Changing my vote to I don't know Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article mentioned went through a series of corrections made by other administrators and an editor on nobility entries. The article was corrected as what was dubious was deleted. Now, Moonriddengirl, you have restored the article to its original debate (when it was already corrected according to Wikipedia's guidelines and other members' suggestions), which I find inappropriate and abusive of your power. In the end, I will put that and every article I had written on consideration for deletion and resign from Wikipedia, because now things had got personal, it seems. The article's talk page was blanked as the subjects mentioned there were deleted, as there was no proof that they existed or that they were related to this family. It will be very confusing to leave such debate there, as no longer (or as before you restored the article to its original wrong references)those names were in the article. I'm delighted to see your own delight on tearing down all I've done, but for your own happiness, I will put all my articles on this deletion process, as I'm just fed up with all of it. I want all the entries I have written deleted on whatever is the charge (and you can rejoice in that) as I have no more to do with these debates. That's all. Very strong delete. AcademieIT (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For those of you keeping score at home, that's one delete, one keep, and one very strong delete, all from the same user. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a probably hoax.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This article, just for the record, should had been removed on Saturday, February 13th 2010 according db-g7 policies, as no one had modified or edited its content before. Users Uncle Dick (talk) and Beeblebrox declined abusively my legitimate db-g7 request, ignoring that no one had modified before the content of the article but me, and my request was based in good faith. More information on: How to delete a page. AcademieIT (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (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.