Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Voce di New York


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

La Voce di New York

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The homepage of this website (namely, the footer) claims it is located in "The United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017", which is fake news: this website has nothing to do with the UN. In the article, it claims to be "a newspaper", although it may well be considered a blog, currently ranked #1,237,472 according to Alexa. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PROMO and WP:BLOGS are the major issues, but in Talk:La Voce di New York you could also find WP:POV, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PEACOCK and probable undisclosed WP:COI. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update I am NOW in the position to demonstrate a GIGANTIC undisclosed COI that Modulato has in this article and that explains why he has so vehemently been trying to get VNY's article deleted over the past 10 days. Admins, please talk to me! This is about SPI and LTA Passani (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update the editor actually works with the website, although he refuses to disclose his COI. For example, see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/author/luca-passani/ —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NO COI: as I have explained (in this very page and in Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard) the fact that I wrote for VNY in the past does not imply a COI anymore than someone with a Facebook profile as a Facebook COI. I observe that the user who has nominated the article for deletion has pervicaciously refused to state that he/she has no WP:COI (User talk:Modulato). Passani (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ROTFL, so year 2021 means "in the past"? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 12:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, I may even write more articles in the future. VNY is open to contributions from anyone who has something meaningful to say. Passani (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete the article is entirely promotional and there is only the barest of substance under all the fluff. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the article's original author and I think that the point is being missed here. La Voce di New York is a solid online newspaper with contributions from a lot of people including reputable and well known Italian journalists (details provided at Talk:La Voce di New York, but I could name countless other journalists). As far as WP:COI, it is not my case. While I did contribute articles to the newspaper in the past (I'm an Italian native speaker), I am not affiliated with the newspaper: I have not received any compensation, I don't plan to receive any compensation in the future, I am not part of the editorial board. Because of this, I maintain that there is no COI. Of course I followed VNY over the years, which made me knowledgeable and motivated enough to use my time to create the article. In fact, I would appreciate if the admin that is so passionately arguing for the deletion of the article could confirm that there is not some kind of reverse WP:COI at play here. About the article being promotional, I had already offered to address that issue in Talk:La Voce di New York and asked for guidance. That part was disregarded, while —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ. proceeded to request the deletion of the page. So, I humbly ask: what's the process here? If I went back and modified all the parts that could be interpreted as promotional, can we get the article to stay? I see that the Italian Wikipedia has translated the article making the content more sober in the process. Would something along those lines be considered a reasonable compromise? Passani (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is promotional (and self-published) in its entirety; assuming the website needs an article, it should be rewritten from scratch. As for it.wikipedia.org, it is a different project that has nothing to do with this AfD. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Again. I am all for finding a reasonable compromise that would still keep the page up, because it is my belief that VNY qualifies for a WP article. The question I am asking is: if I was to rewrite the article from scratch along the lines of what was done (by someone else) for the Italian version, would this make the deletion thing go away? Passani (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 17:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The user who placed the deletion note keeps spreading fake news and refusing to acknowledge evidence (in Talk:La Voce di New York) that what is reported in the article is correct. I requested multiple times to confirm that there is no WP:COI (i.e. a will to damage VNY for whatever reason), but that request has been ignored. Can some WP admin look at this and advise? Mildly put, there's something fishy going on here Passani (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have nothing to do with your website. Sure, there is something fishy going on: your alleged affiliation with the UN is a hoax and shoud be removed. https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-website/fraud-alert/ —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 18:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment You have avoided the question once more: can you positively affirm that you have no WP:COI wrt VNY (which, btw, is not my website)? Passani (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a Wikipedia editor who read this article and decided to nominate it for the aforementioned reasons. The fact that you objected to the nomination and got furious doesn't mean that I have a COI with your website. By the way, you said that you used to work with the website; you should also avoid personal attacks. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you have carefully avoided affirming that you don't have a WP:COI. Yet I asked you several times. I maintain that I am knowledgeable about VNY but do not have a WP:COI. I wrote a few articles for them, but never received any compensation, don't plan to receive it, I am not part of the board, I cannot represent VNY in any capacity. So no COI for me. But obviously there's COI involved for you. Passani (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem a bit confused. Conflict of interest doesn't necessarily mean paid contributions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I maintain that I have no Conflict of interest. You have not affirmed that you have no COI (in fact I strongly suspect that you do and are using anonymity to hide it. Passani (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. News media do not get a free article on Wikipedia, and in 2021, I would think everybody knows that after 20 years. Based on what I see, one can not assume good faith here. There's a single mention in a single independent source. That's far below what most editors consider WP:SIGCOV. I'm willing to change my mind, but to keep it would require a search for better sources and adding them to the article, or a change in the well-settled consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Article Author here. I am not sure why you are saying that I am not acting in good faith. I think that mentions by RAI (Italian State TV), La Repubblica, Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award, are all independent sources. Anyway, as stated before, I am willing to work to improve the article so that it meets WikiPedia standards. I could use some guidance, at this point. If being featured in TV programs in State TV is not considered an independent source, I am a bit at a loss about what is. Thanks Passani (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that you do not consider articles featuring VNY by RAI and La Repubblica sufficiently notable apparently, but no explanation is being provided on why. Could this be a language problem? What about Bill Di Blasio's letter? Looking at WP:NNEWSPAPER, I see that other criteria are listed for notability of magazines, newspapers and other pubblications. It seems to me that VNY falls squarely under the The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. criteria. Google Scholar will lead to several citations of VNY articles in academic work. Letting Google count the number of VNY pages returns a remarkable 60,000. I think only about 20k of those pages are articles, but still a pretty significant amount that vouches for the relevance of the newspaper in the Italian news media landscape. Of course, if I went looking for citations by other websites, that would bring up a ton of references to VNY articles. Passani (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Too bad those results are not "academic works" proper. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 07:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Too bad (for you) those results are academic works proper. While you are here... I still need to see your claim that you have no WP:COI in this article, yet I asked many times. You have been dedicating significant effort to taking down the VNY article, without significant contributions to any other pages. In the past, you have focused on a few selected articles. Your profile does not say much about you, but you exhibit significant knowledge of Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. Time to come clean. Do you have a COI? Passani (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no conflicts of interest with any Wikipedia articles, and you should not accuse people of being "haters", "vandals", "cyber attackers" or "COI editors" just because your article has been nominated. That being said, you are off topic. As for your results, the first is not even an article, and the second is a self-published book. I don't have enough time to check the others. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Once more, an answer that avoids the question and an attempt to muddy the water. I was referring to the long lists of references to VNY articles that Google scholars brings up. You have repeatedly refused to look at the evidence I have provided and refused to look for consensus on the content of the article. My only hope is that admins will look closely at the provided evidence and reach their own conclusions on who is acting honestly here. Passani (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage of the newspaper in reliable sources.2A04:4A43:497F:E21A:2CBB:940E:C354:914F (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would be nice if you could identify yourself when you cast a vote. Anyway, there is plenty of room to demonstrate that the article meets the threshold for notability of newspapers according to WP:NNEWSPAPER. Passani (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to create an account to participate in a deletion discussion. The closing admin does have the prerogative to discount or reduce the weight of arguments made by un- or newly-registered editors. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Something very suspicious is going on here. First someone mentions that Modulato may be a sockpuppet and long-time abuser on your page, and you delete the comment without a reason. Then an anonymous vote shows up here and Modulato immediately corrects the wikitext to make it look good, followed by your immediate comment in support of the anonymous user. I smell sockpuppet/meatpuppet from 10 miles away. Passani (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Passani the best way to establish notability for the article is to show it meets WP:GNG by showing it has received in  that are . Italia Oggi looks like one source, RAI probably another as I couldn't hear it without registering. Other sources don't look independent: La Repubblica looks like an interview with Stefano Vaccara and Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award are both referenced to La Voce di New York. WP:NNEWSPAPER is a WP:ESSAY so it is not conclusive. TSventon (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TSventon the RAI website does not really require registration in the sense that SSO with a multitude of social accounts will get you to the content. If you do login, you will see (1:10) RAI's cameraman follow Vaccara inside the UN building and interviewing him (in his UN office!) about La Voce di New York. About Di Blasio's letter, you can find it at this link. It was written by Di Blasio's office and signed by Di Blasio. La Repubblica interviews Stefano Vaccara inside the UN building as well (this was 2013, when VNY was at its inception). La Repubblica and Il Corriere are Italy's two top newspapers, you don't get an interview with them that easily. Amerigo's award is referenced by the Amerigo website and it's an initiative endorsed by the US embassy in Rome. About WP:NNEWSPAPER, it may not be conclusive (nothing is at this point), but VNY does qualify for notability accoding to it. Passani (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails wp:GNG92.40.192.10 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost all sources cited in the article are to the newspaper itself. The award mentioned in the "Awards, Recognitions and Acknowledgements" section was also set up by this newspaper, not awarded to it. The only independent source cited, an article in la Repubblica, contains only a couple of brief mentions of the newspaper. Nothing to show satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ORG here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looks like I missed a few sources listed at the start of References. Of them one, Italia Oggi, does seem to provide significant coverage of the subject. I have not been able to access the RAI TV report but in general TV and printed interviews with the subjects themselves do not contribute to their notability. De Blasio's letter was published in La Voce di New York so it again doesn't count unless there are other sources that discuss this letter. There is still far too little here for satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability requires significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Most of the references now in the article fall far short of that standard. The first reference is an interview with VNY's editor Stefano Vaccara, and is a recapitulation of its early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not significant coverage of VNY. The second reference is an interview with Vaccara, which does not establish notability because it is not independent. The third reference, an article in Italia Oggi, appears to be significant coverage, but I do not read Italian. A complicating factor is that Vaccara used to work for Oggi. This seems to be the most promising reference. Reference #4 is something written by Vaccara for VNY, and therefore of no value for establishing notability. Reference #5 verifies that VNY won a non-notable award but does not devote significant coverage to VNY. It is a passing mention. That does not establish notability. References #6, #7 and #8 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. The ninth reference appears to be a video interview with Vaccara (correct me if I am wrong), and if so, does not establish notability. References #10, #11, #12 and #13 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. Reference #14 is about recipients of an award that VNY gives, and does not include any significant coverage of VNY itself, and does not establish notability. Reference #15 is a duplicate of reference #5. Reference #16 was published in VNY, is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. This debate has been damaged by the fact that the original author has an obvious COI and yet vehemently denies their COI, attacks other editors and is bludgeoning this discussion. That is most unfortunate and I urge the editor to correct their disruptive behavior. But I made my decision based only on an assessment of the sources. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  02:33, 11 April 2021 (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.