Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noemi Letizia


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Noemi Letizia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Fails WP:BLP1E among others. Asserting that someone was "made famous for receiving a gold necklace" borders on the ludicrous. The article is poorly sourced, and the subject's father says he intends to sue what sources there are for libel (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090526/twl-will-berlusconi-answer-teen-scandal-3fd0ae9.html) Harry the Dog  WOOF  11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree, this article has no place in an encyclopedia. - Ryan (Main Menu)(Language Selection) 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Silly entry. This topic is worth no more than a sentence at Veronica Lario or Silvio Berlusconi or somewhere... Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this deserves an entry in Berlusconi's article.  As to the libel suit, if that goes somewhere and Berlusconi gets embroiled, then this might be worthy of an article, but those are big "ifs" which have not yet transpired.Tyrenon (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not really notable. Salvageable content could be moved to Silvio Berlusconi if it satisfies WP:WEIGHT. Easy on the eye! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable gossip. Not notable for an encyclopedia. Of course, if Silvio marries her, has children by her, then divorces her, we can revisit notability at that time. Weak support for including a mention of her in the Silvio Berlusconi article, but frankly, that guy sleeps around so much we could fill an entire encyclopedia solely with his individual conquests. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete even if the affair will have heavy consequences she won't be notable, on it.wiki we speedly deleted the article four times. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was speedy deleted just because they feared it could in fact survive a votation: Wikipedia it pages to delete: "Immediata e non semplificata, perché potrebbe anche finire a votazione. --Salvo da Palermo" ("Speedy, not simplified, because it could be voted"). --ElfQrin (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you didn't read anything about the deletions we made: you're wrong, here there's a lot of consensus for deletion. In thetalk page only two users (you and Felisopus) and a troll (a recidive one, already banned) asked for creating again the page. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion is 4 days later then the speed deletion. --Beechs (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, similar to Monica Lewinsky (for the implications). --ElfQrin (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing like Monica Lewinsky. In that case there was proven misconduct with an employee. In this case, there is gossip (denied) about a family friend. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Ugh. Not notable. Good lord. لenna  vecia  12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete She's just a silly girl who's one of Silvio Berlusconi's flings. Non-notable - unless it is revealed she's not a fling but that she is actually his love child, in which case the article will have to be re-introduced and re-written. Tovojolo (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's face it, if Obama was in Silvio's position, this would have been a featured article by now. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She is notable and of current importance. Maybe the story will disappear soon (it's mentioned rarely on Italian TV but that's probably because Berlusconi owns or controls most of the media) and if so it can be deleted but for now it seems importance and relevent.  I'm sure someone will discount this comment because I'm not a logged in user but it doesn't matter anyway because Wikipedia is now controlled by over-zealous admins so there's never a democratic vote (or even a normal discussion) anymore.--217.203.178.11 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 217.203.178.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment this is exactly backwards &mdash; we don't write articles on people when they're in the news, then delete them when they "stop being relevant". That's newsworthiness, not notability.  We write articles only on topics that will predictably be of future as well as current interest. --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep She is at the center of an international scandal which involved the image of the italian prime minister and that of his country too. --Felisopus (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (small note: more than half million hits in only two weeks)
 * Delete Not notable. --82.53.108.79 (talk) 21:36, 28 May — 82.53.108.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP This is Wikipedia's chance to show it's not open to political meddling. The page has been deleted from Italian Wikipedia and should have been kept there. It should also be kept here. This is a present political issue and if anything it should be expanded. Removing it goes against all the principles of democracy by which Wikipedia was founded. If Italy's internal media can't be free at least let the internet remain free. KEEP, KEEP, KEEP, KEEP, KEEP!!!!220.238.68.173 (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 220.238.68.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I belong politically to the left (and pay attention to this affair is political mistake), I live in Italy and italian media are dedicating too much time to this affaire, wiki must have no political scopes so the keeping of this page "for web freedom" is quite wrong. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis is shame. --87.15.38.150 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 87.15.38.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Personality of high current relevance, appearing in quality media all across Europe. --Alib (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. An she does pass the notability requirements.--Judo112 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (Emphasis mine.) That doesn't seem to be the case here. Even if her alleged affair with Berlusconi is never proven, the allegation in itself has sparked what's expected to be one of the most expensive divorces in history. Plus, she's a professional model. Not exactly the kind of person that keeps a low profile even if they're not involved in any sort of scandal. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that her father's libel suit makes her more notable over the allegations, not less. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable and notingh like Monica Lewinsky. --87.13.167.126 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 87.13.167.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete non notable. --82.55.162.50 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) — 82.55.162.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment She is certainly likely to remain low profile. Monica Lewinsky she ain't. This allegation alone didn't spark the divorce. His wife has commented previously on his infidelities, and she has expressed political disagreements. If she goes on to do something notable, she should have an article, but for now mention of her should be confined to the BLPs of the relevant people. Harry the Dog WOOF  20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It would appear a lot of the deletes are do-not-like votes. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep very notable - there was an article in our local newspaper only today with her picture. This is coverage across the world and not just on one occasion. This means there is multiple independent sources covering her.  Satisfying the WP:N criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment What about the WP:BLP issues? Most of the allegations made in this article have been strongly denied. The article as it stands is poorly sourced gossip. I am sorry, but no one is "notable for receiving a gold necklace". If that is her only claim to notability, as the article asserts, the article must go. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is still shoddy, but there is plenty of relevance that can be added. The Berlusconi article is already over-long and sub-articles are required. The story is still developing - Berlusconi has gone to the courts to prevent publication of photos of the party at which Letizia was allegedly a guest. Maybe in a week a proper decision can be made. Pontificake (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment "Shoddy" BLPs need to be improved immediately or deleted. Since nothing more can be added to this article beyond speculation, rumour and gossip, it should be deleted until such time as a substantial and factual article can be created. In the meantime, mention of the controversy belongs in Berlusconi's artice. Harry the Dog WOOF  17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is interesting to the public, potentially politically important, and we presumably can produce adequate sources. Something which is ostensibly causing the divorce of a major political figure is noteworthy almost by definition. OP says "the subject's father says he intends to sue what sources there are for libel" - this actually makes the subject more noteworthy. Article could stand to be improved, but presumably can be. Let's hold off on the delete for now and look for progress or lack thereof in another few months. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC) -- Added: Someone seems to have added the "del" (strikeout) tag to my vote for me. DON'T DO THAT, and I have reverted it back to"Keep". Although I have mentioned below some factors which could be taken to argue against "Keep", my vote is still "Keep", for the reasons I've already given. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE Spam & gossip. --82.53.107.111 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC) — 82.53.107.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The problem is that if the article is libelous, Wikipedia is in line to be sued as well if the article is not quickly deleted. It is one thing to mention the controversy in Berlusconi's article. It is quite another to create an article about a person involved in that controversy, who is not otherwise notable, repeating insinuations and gossip that cannot be shown to be factual. Harry the Dog WOOF  20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment': Libel for info, though it is very brief. Obviously enough, this article needs to adhere to WP:BLP. Everything that's not properly cited can be removed immediately. However, IMHO, whatever is cited should stay, and IMHO we should be able to assemble enough properly cited material to have an adequate article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no idea what the legal situation is if an Italian citizen sues a USA-based nonprofit for libel over an article that quotes mainstream sources. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Noemi Letizia in Italian Wikipedia seems to have been deleted on grounds that it was "non enciclopedico" - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Noemi_Letizia -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mild Keep. I think the Monica L. reference above is just. Neither has yet proved herself to be interesting in herself, but both have played notable parts in big (or at least moderately big) stories. A reader in twenty (or two hundred) years time who comes across a reference to her in an old play will think very well of Wikipedia if they find a brief description of her. [If the deletion motion were that Wikipedia should avoid mention of any living person I might reverse my vote.] Ian Spackman (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Be very careful comparing Noemi Letizia with Lewinsky. These kinds of comparison are precisely why this article needs to be deleted. There is simply no evidence of any sexual impropriety between Letizia and Berlusconi and to suggest so is libelous. If it is later shown that there was impropriety, then the article can be re-created. For now, Noemi Letizia can redirect to the appropriate section in the Berlusconi article so those looking for information on the story based on her name will find it. Harry the Dog WOOF  09:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To me it is entirely unimportant whether either of them had sexual relations with anyone. Why would that be of interest to me? My comparison is simply that they are are/were unknown young women who had notability thrust upon them by the actions of important older politicians. Both will be footnotes, at least, in the history books to come and our value as encyclopaedists will be increased by helping future historians write those footnotes.


 * Yes, it is unimportant in one sense. But when you say the name Monica Lewinsky, what is the first image that comes to most people's minds? Fellatio in the Oval Office? The whole reason ML is notable is because of the sexual indiscretions. NL has denied any such indiscretions, going so far as to say she is a virgin. So comparisons between ML and NL in terms of their relationships with the powerful men involved are entirely inappropriate at this stage. It leaves Wikipedia open to the legal pursuits that are being threatened. Do you really think that the actions of the two politicians (one taking sexual advantage of an employee, the other hosting a birthday party for a young woman and giving her a present) are in any way comparable? All I am saying is be very careful about drawing these comparisons as the only basis for keeping this article. The mention of her will be just as easily found by historians in Berlusconi's article, with a redirect from here.. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable. Its just a news story, thats all, coppied from a single source allmost word for word. Quode (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a transient scandal.  If the story winds up bringing down Berlusconi's government, then she might be as notable as Monica (well, no, probably not, but at least in the same ballpark), and the article could be recreated.  But there will be time for that.  Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and hopefully especially not a scandal sheet. --Trovatore (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete --79.2.0.235 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.0.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. This is NOT a transient scandal, this is NOT spam! Noemi Letizia is a personality of high current relevance, appearing in quality media all across Europe. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's exactly the problem &mdash; current relevance. We don't care about current relevance.  This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  From a sourcing point of view, news articles are not good sources, and as far as I know there are hardly any other sources that mention her. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * News articles aren't good sources? That's a shame since thousands and thousands of Wikipedia articles use news articles as sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they weren't allowable sources. I said they weren't good sources.  They're OK as a backup.  But if there aren't any other sources on a topic, there's a good chance the topic isn't notable. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If we are going to stop trusting the BBC and the New York Times as sources, we might as well just stop creating new articles unless someone has already written a book. I would also point out that BLP problems or other things that can be cleaned up are reasons to improve the article and are not reasons to delete an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not about "trusting" them. It's about the distinction between momentary newsworthiness and encyclopedic notability.  The Silvio Berlusconi article is a particularly embarrassing example of what happens when editors throw in every silly People-magazine style minor outrage the man committed in the week preceding.  This article seems to be an outgrowth of the culture in that article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP issues must be addressed immediately. This article has barely been improved since its creation. The reason for that is that based on what we know, it is impossible to improve it. If we were to remove everything that was a BLP problem in this article there would be nothing left, certainly nothing to assert notability. Reported gossip and innuendo is still gossip and innuendo. Just because the BBC and others choose to report what is happening does not mean that this article should be kept. There is a big difference between reporting on an event (a crisis, a scandal etc.) as the BBC etc. are doing and spinning that off into a poorly sourced article on individuals. Harry the Dog WOOF  18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is also a good point, and it's worth noting that, under US libel law, we are probably safe from any suits by Berlusconi, under the American "public figure" doctrine. It is not technically impossible for him to win a suit in a US court, but it would be very difficult.  For Ms. Letizia things are rather different.  Both from a point of view of legal safety, and just common decency, we have to be especially careful what we say about her. --Trovatore (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I completely agree that BLP issues are urgent, and should be fixed as soon as possible, and I have left a notice at WP:BLPN regarding this article. I just don't think it's a valid reason to delete an article with multiple very reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - You can add The Washington Post, Telegraph, Times Online and France24 to the list as well . - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I was interested who she was, so I came to wikipedia. The scandal is big enough to grant her entry here, plenty of reliable sources talk about her. Enegrea (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. WP:BLP1E, non notable. Yet another sicking little article drummed up by those who believe that Wikipedia should be gutter press. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete An incredible example of WP as National Enquirer competitor, and violating BLP standards both as to nature and sourcing of claims. I am an extrordinarily firm believer that BLPs must not be tabloid-like, and I would suggest that anyone reading this would read the Weekly World News each week :( . Collect (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Statements in the article are sourced. This issue keeps getting brought up, but I'm not sure anyone has cited a specific example of a blp violation in this article. Sources are internationally known and respected news organs like the Guardian and the NY Times. If there is a problem, let's fix it, but crying out "BLP violation" without specifying where is not very helpful. (Just as an aside, the Weekly World News is no longer being published) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Statements like the very opening sentence: "Noemi Letizia is an 18 year old Italian woman, who has become the center of controversy..." Is she really? The controversy surely surrounds Berlusconi, and she is a player in it. To say that she is "the center of controversy" implies that she may have done something wrong. There is no evidence at present that she (or indeed Berluscon in this instance) has done anything wrong. And if she is not the center of the controversy, she is no notable. She can and should be mentioned in a discussion of the controversy, which should take place in Berlusconi's article, or a separate article on the controversy itself if it becomes important enough for that. Harry the Dog WOOF  05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll grant that you may have a point about her not being the "center" and I have edited the article to remove that characterization. However, I do not grant that if she is not the absolute center of the controversy, she is not notable. Lynndie_England and Linda Tripp were both bit players in political controversies and both have their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. The point is that Wikipedia does not have the same protection under US libel laws with Letizia as it does with Berlusconi. That means we have to be very careful what we say and how we characterise her, implicitly as well as explicitly. Just because otherwise reliable sources are reproducing what others are saying doesn't mean we should include it. If the BBC were to say. "According to the National Enquirer..." would we consider that reliable? Harry the Dog WOOF  06:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Irrelevant. --Alfie (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very relevant; statements sourced; one of the major causes of Veronica Lario's decision to file for divorce; the case that first opened italian media's eyes over the sexual misconduct of italian PM as a civil servant: naked Mirek Topolánek has been photographed with naked girls in Berlusconi's harem, in Berlusconi's villa. So, is this what they use to do during meetings? Well, that's relevant. Nightbit (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment But there is no evidence that Letizia played any part in any of this. This is precisely why this article is a BLP violation. Let's discussed sourced instances of Berlusconi's indiscretions by all means, in his own article and Lario's. If Letzizia is mentioned there, that's one thing, but to make her the center of these events, when she is no such thing and there is no evidence that she herself did anything wrong is a violation of WP:BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF  05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you claim that there is no evidence she played any part in the events described in an article that is about her? If Silvio came to her birthday party (which I don't believe has been disputed anywhere) then she "played a part." The exact nature of her role is not defined in the article because it is not clearly defined by the sources, and that is as it should be, but clearly she is part and parcel of this incident. What else would you have us believe his soon-to-be-ex-wife was referring to in her statement regarding their divorce when she said that she "cannot remain with a man who consorts with minors" Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have been more specific. It is precisely when we start talking about hareems etc. that we are in trouble. What i meant was that there is no evidence that Letizia has been involved in anything improper with Berlusconi, that any "indiscretions" have taken place. The whole premise of this article is that something improper has happened (in which case Letizia might be notable as an individual). Berlusconi "consorting with minors" would be his impropriety (if indeed he dd anything improper with them), not the minors'. There is no evidence that Letizia has been engaged in anything improper, much less been a member of any hareem; to even suggest or imply that is libelous. It is tittilating, but it's not encyclopaedic. Harry the Dog WOOF  06:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good reasons to keep an eye on the article, and to edit to make sure it accurately reflects what is in the sources, but not good reasons to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing that it's OK for Wikipedia to retain libelous content? According to WP:BLP it is not. And right now, the entire premise of this article (that Letizia has somehow engaged in improper behaviour) is libelous. Therefore the article should be deleted. If evidence emerges that she has engaged in improper behaviour, the article can be recreated. In the mean time, discussions of Berlusconi's improprieties can take place in the article about him. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest I can't see anything in the current version of the article that could be considered libellous. I've not been able to go back to the origial source as I don't speak italian, but I don't think that Noemi is hinted as having done anything wrong. Pontificake (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Allegations involving Letizia ...". That is quite simply libellous. There are no "Allegations involving Letizia...". An allegation "involving Letizia" implies that she has done something wrong. There are allegations against Berlusconi (that have neither been proved nor disproved yet) but there is no reliable suggestion that Letizia has been involved in anything improper, nor any serious allegations made against her either in relation to her actions or her character. Yet that is the premise of this article. Since the premise is so flawed as to be libellous, the article should be deleted. Harry the Dog WOOF  09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * U.S. President Ronald Reagan was shot while in office. This is a news story involving Ronald Reagan. It says nothing against Ronald Reagan. Suppose that Joe Schmo is in the press because of allegations that he bilked Bill Gates out of a million dollars. This is IMHO, an "allegation involving Bill Gates". It makes no implication against Bill Gates. It seems to me that an allegation against X would be one implying that X may have done something wrong. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In those cases it is clear what happened. In this case, we are dealing with rumour, gossip and speculation. Therefore, "allegations involving..." could easily be interpreted in a negative way, given that Letizia is the subject of the article. That is why there is a separate article on the attempt on Reagan's life. If no one had been convicted, there would not be a separate article on an otherwise non-notable suspect all about how he was a suspect in the case. At most, the suspect would be mentioned in the Ronald Reagan was shot while in office article in passing. This is very similar. Whatever Belusconi may or may not have done, there is no evidence of impropriety against Letizia, who is otherwise not notable. The creation of the article, especially given some of the language it uses, clearly implies she has done something wrong, and is therefore libellous. Harry the Dog WOOF


 * (undent) You have based your line of argument on very shaky ground. This young lady is clearly over the bar of WP:N. Here is just one example, a quote from the New York Times:"First came a rare and inescapable torrent of speculation — in blogs, on television and radio, at dinner tables across Italy — about the nature and origins of his relationship with Noemi Letizia, a pretty blond aspiring model whose 18th birthday party he attended in Naples last month, and who has said she calls him Daddy. This was the party that caused Mr. Berlusconi’s wife to declare their marriage, one year older than Ms. Letizia, over."Similar statements can be found in many of the other sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what your point is. None of this justifies her own article. This is still about Berlusconi and his wife. There is no evidence of any misconduct by Letizia, and as such we should not be creating an article about her that, by implication and even explicitly, suggests otherwise. In fact, the NY Times is wrong. Berlusconi's wife never mentioned Letizia by name. She spoke of him "consorting with minors". Indeed he seems to have done that, and there are suggestions that there may of been improper conduct. But to embroil Letitzia in that by name when she was never mentioned by name by Berlusconi's wife is wrong. So what exactly is her notoriety? That she is a friend of the Italian PM and he threw a party for her and gave her a present. Does that really make her notable enough for her own article? If she is cited in the divorce petition and more evidence comes to light, the article can be recreated. But this is an example of precisely why the article should be deleted. Gossip and innuendo is being extrapolated to involve a living person by name, with the clear implication that she has misbehaved, when there is no evidence of that at all. We can discuss the ongoing fallout on Berlusconi's page because he is a public figure and as such we have some protection in discussing his actions. But Letizia is a private citizen, and to create an article on her which suggests impropriety on her part leaves Wikipedia on pretty shaky ground. Harry the Dog WOOF  18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some highly reliable sources according to which the relationship between Silvio Berlusconi and Noemi Letizia has played a huge role in the decision made by Veronica Lario to file for a divorce; sources explain the enormous economic, financial, political impact of such a divorce; sources explain how Noemi was promised a brilliant career as an actress or as a politician (which may well happen, if you know Mara Carfagna story); sources say Noemi Letizia was in Berlusconi's villa with many other girls and this group of girls (most of them) payed by Berlusconi has been reported by sources as Berlusconi's harem; sources explain how the Noemigate is influencing italian elections for the European Parliament forcing Berlusconi to maintain a low profile; sources report the position of the Vatican that - on this occasion - has asked Berlusconi to be more sombre. All this has been caused by the incident with Noemi Letizia - incident called by many sources Noemigate. I believe this is quite enough for Wikipedia to have an article on her or at least on the incident itself (we could move the article to Noemigate). Nightbit (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly not. You misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Let me give as clear examples as I can. Even though they are heavily involved in major stories, Madeleine McCann and her family do not have separate articles. Neither do Josef Fritzl and his family. Why? Because they are non-notable people who have been caught up in notable events. Exactly the same is true with Letizia. We have to be extremely careful when it comes to biographies of living people. If otherwise reliable sources choose to report gossip and innuendo (and indeed, report it incorrectly), that does not mean that Wikipedia should follow suit. Letizia is an otherwise non-notable person, like Madeleine, Kate and Gerry McCann, and like Josef and Elizabeth Fritzl. And like them, she should not have her own article unless she achieves notability beyond the particular event. Harry the Dog WOOF  13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To me you seem to be arguing against deletion but in favour of a move to Noemi Letizia affair, retaining the redirect (as in the case of Madeleine McCann and Josef Fritzl). The (presumably ex-) boyfriend would also redirect to that article. I could support you there, but I am not able to support either a deletion or a redirect to a subsection of the Berlusconi article: that is already unmanageably large and needs to be trimmed. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am arguing for deletion and if necessary (which is not clear right now) the creation of a separate article on the controversy if it proves to have legs beyond the current interest. In the meantime, discussions of Berlusconi's alleged indiscretions should be confined to the article about him. I know it's a fairly long article, but we still need to have material in the appropriate place, and someone with as long and varied career (and personal life) as Berlusconi is of course going to have a lengthy article. Harry the Dog WOOF  20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - A hard work has been made to rewrite this article. Now it tells the whole Letizia-incident (which has been very relevant in Italy in the last month) from a neutral point of view, citing reliable sources. Often newspapers, italian and foreign, give wrong details of the story. We need to keep this article to explain it clearly. 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.15.250 (talk) — 62.10.15.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . However, Harry the Dog is right. As today, Letizia's involment in this incident is fading, while the central point has become Berlusconi's lies and angry reactions (sources in the article). Deletion of this article would be wrong, because I (and the other contributors before me) spent several hours finding reliable sources to reconstruct faithfully the story (I repeat that this reconstruction is important because newspapers often give wrong details). The text should be moved in the "Silvio Berlusconi" main article, or in a separate voice named "Papi-gate", "Letiziopoli" or-how-do-you-call-it. 20:51, 2009-06-01 (UTC)
 * Delete because there isn't anything new comparing this article with Silvio Berlusconi, after applying the use of reliable publications. Perhaps if there is anything new in future it can be rewritten, but for now even the main article is better written and sourced than this one. - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's gossip, irrilevant on Wikipedia. Even the italian wiki doesn't have a page for this.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't say it's gossip.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.170.195 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - predominantly WP:BLP1E. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1BE. Mentioning her by name makes sense on the Berlusconi article; writing a complete article about her is both inappropriate and impossible. Nathan  T 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't be impossible because it's already been done... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A complete article written? I disagree. Nathan  T 22:36, 2 June 2009 (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.