Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier Giuseppe Monateri


 * 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. No convincing argument for this individual's notability has been made. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 23:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Pier Giuseppe Monateri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources of notabilty. Actually no sources at all. Canoe1967 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the sources that Canoe1967 removed. He, but see WP:NOENG. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only sources I deleted were only the conteniuos legal issues section. At the time the lead and other sections had no sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:NOENG the sources should provide a non-machine translation. I am going to remove it again as per BLP contentious. Please seek consensus on the talk page before adding it again. I am also claiming 3RR exemption for removing contentious material from a BLP that does not have consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 10.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  04:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that Canoe's reasoning for removal of that content was invalid (see my comments about WP:NOENG at WP:BLPN regarding this article). However, even if the sources for the "Legal problems" section are reliable, why is any of that content worthy of inclusion? Is it appropriate to include mere allegations into a BLP article? It appears there was no conviction, no trial; not even any charges. But the most important issue with the article is that, other than the three Italian sources in that very contentious section, there are absolutely no references. So how can someone be notable if there are zero sources to prove it? And even if there were reliable sources to support all the content, does Monateri meet any of the nine notability criteria for academics/professors? --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Based on my comment above. As it stands now the article has zero sources, so there is absolutely no proof that he meets the notability criteria for academics/professors. The only three sources in the article - all in Italian, with no translations - are for the highly contentious "Legal problems" section, which has caused a major edit war over the past couple days. For the record, I am not saying Monateri is not notable; I'm simply saying that there's currently no proof of it. No proof, no notability. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that notability is clearly not established as it stands, aside from the lead, the article is nothing more than technical jibberish about some of the subject's claimed works, rather than a biographical descrption of his life and career. It appears to possibly be a direct copy-and-paste from a source associated with the subject; perhaps directly from Monateri. Overall, the article is a very awkward promotional piece rather than an encylopedia article, which it is required to be. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:NOENG says that non-machine translations are preferred, not required. A source can be reliable even if it only has a machine translation. PhantomTech (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's out of context. There's more to the policy than that. Editors can read and interpret WP:NOENG for themselves. In any case, it's totally irrelevant to why we're here. Our sole purpose is to decide if Monateri is notable and the article should be deleted. If the article survives, then the "Legal problems" section can be sorted out to determine if the content is worthy of inclusion and the sources are reliable.--76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of references were removed because they were non-english. If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability, even if it is not the focus of the article, at least the sources should have been left. This is relevant because everything above this is saying that there are "zero sources" as if the non-english sources didn't count. You can't just say that we are going to decide if the subject is notable but that we cant use any of the information about any legal problems that might have happened untill after notability has been proven. The subject might be notable because of the legal . If that is true, then there would be nothing wrong with including the legal problems in the article as long as a NPOV is maintained. PhantomTech (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that's completely out of context. The only references in the article were those three Italian ones for the contentious content about his alleged "legal problems". Even if for the sake of argument we say that those sources are reliable, none of them do a thing to establish his notability. They pertain only to mere allegations about his involvement in a crime. And you made my case even stronger when you said, "If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability..." (emphasis added). We don't determine source reliability based on ifs. This is why the translations are vital, especially when the content can be so damaging to a living person's reputation. I suggest you carefully read WP:NPF; this very important policy within BLP requires editors to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" and explains that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." And your claim that "everything above" is saying there are zero sources is false. What I said was, "other than the three Italian sources in that very contentious section, there are absolutely no references". After that, someone removed the disputed content and so I said, "As it stands now the article has zero sources" (emphasis added). So obviously, no one is hiding the facts relating to the three Italian sources. In any case, the primary problem is not about the sourcing of his alleged "legal problems", but rather whether that content is even worthy of inclusion. But let's get back to the only reason we are here. You have failed to address the only question that matters: What makes Monateri notable? Which of the nine notability criteria for academics/professors does he meet? And where's the proof (reliable sources) for it? Those are the only things that matter here. All this talk about his supposed legal problems are simply an irrelevant distraction. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the legal problems could be "What makes Monateri notable?" An article about a professor does not have to meet any of the criteria in WP:PROF, being a professor just opens up more possible reasons for being notable. The article can meet anything in any applicable category including WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Every source about a topic does somthing to establish notability because WP:GNG says that significant coverage can make somthing notable. Any coverage about a topic, english or not, contributes to the significance of that coverage. One of the reasons O. J. Simpson is notable is because of the "not guilty" verdict of a murder trial. Clearly this person is less notable than Simpson, especialy because the murder trial was not the only reason Simpson is notable, but that doesn't mean Simpson would not have been considered notable if the only coverage he had was related to the trial. My point is that you can't just say "If the article survives, then the "Legal problems" section can be sorted out", everything, even things that aren't currently in the article, have to be considered in the argument about notability since anything related to the topic can make it notable. No coverage about a topic can be called a "distraction" when that topic's notability is being disputed. So sorry for saying "If those references have information that can prove or help prove notability..." because the fact that those references exist and make any mention of the topic of the article mean that they do, at least, help prove notability; even if those sources don't prove, by themselves, that the topic is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia you can't say that they do nothing to prove notability. PhantomTech (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are so far off the mark that it's almost not even worth addressing. The notability being claimed for Monateri is based solely on his work as a professor, not any of the allegations, which clearly do nothing to establish notability. Mere allegations against a private person most certainly can never be used to establish their notability; the standard is much higher than that with regard to BLPs. Let's get the facts straight... this article was created four years ago and the contentious allegations weren't added until just days ago. And the content that those three Italian sources apply to has been justifiably removed, per WP:NPF. The article exists only because academic notability was being claimed. Finally, to compare an unknown college professor in Italy to O.J. Simpson, one the greatest running backs of all-time, and the defendant in one of the biggest murder trials of all time, is outrageous. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read WP:GNG. Significant coverage by reliable and independent sources is enough to establish notability so "Mere allegations against a private person most certainly" can be used to help establish their notability and shouldn't be disregarded just because they only contain allegations. Just because the topic may not have been notable when the article was created doesn't mean that it isn't notable now. Only notability based on academics is mentioned in the article because you and Canoe removed the information about legal problems. That might have been a good idea since consensus has not been reached on if the information should be included or not but, since the information may be the reason that the person is notablie, WP:NPF may not apply and while it is probably a good idea to leave the information out of the article for now the information should still be considered in this discussion. The reason I compared him to Simpson was to show that accusations can increase someone's notability. PhantomTech (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you carefully read JFHJr's comments below. Yet again, you've provided no proof that Monateri is notable. And you need to check your facts before making false claims against another editor. You said, "you and Canoe removed the information about legal problems". I never removed that content. And I had absolutely no involvement in the huge edit war that's been going on with that content. You have. In fact, I am the one who initated an investigation into the edit-warring and specifically chose not to get involved. So please be careful when you make accusations. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about saying that you were involved in removing the content, I remembered that it was an IP and assumed it was you. Anyway, I haven't provided any proof that the article should stay because, if you look at my first post, this is just a comment. I am not saying that this article should be kept or deleted. The only reason I posted was to point out that sources don't have to be in english. PhantomTech (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - People keep saying "no sources", so I guess that you haven't looked at the article since a reference was given for the posts that he holds? Others can decide whether those posts satisfy notability criteria for academics/professors. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, a misrepresentation of what has been posted. At the time this AfD was created, there were no sources, other than the three for the "Legal problems" section (which had subsequently been appropriately removed, per WP:NPF). But that was clearly explained. And there were certainly no sources that proved his notability, which is the point. I don't think anyone is questioning that he's a professor at a major university. But that in itself does not make him notable. It's simply another irrelevant distraction to focus on the semantics of editors' comments. The only important issue remains: Is Monateri notable? If so, which of the nine criteria does he meet? And where's the proof? If he's notable, fine... add the reliable sources. If not, then the article should be deleted. At this moment, we over 13,000 bytes of content, yet only a single source - recently added - that doesn't establish notability. So we now have a BLP article with 99% of its content unsourced. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete — Regarding WP:BASIC criteria, I don't find these particular Italian-language pieces to be of adequate reliability, especially for WP:BLP purposes. The content about someone else's murder violates WP:BLPCRIME and doesn't add constructively to having an encyclopedic biography. Otherwise, the WP:BLPSPS source does not lead me to believe the subject has met any of the alternative criteria under WP:PROFESSOR that might show automatic notability in WP terms. His h-index is 9, which I don't consider encyclopedically notable on its own. JFHJr (㊟) 20:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Promo of less than notable Alan Dershowitz wannabe with low h-index. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the Dershowitz part ;), but your point about the article being purely a promotional piece is very interesting. I never thought of it that way because my primary concern is simply establishing notability. But you're right; in reading the article again, the legitimacy of your assessment seems to be overwhelming. It really does seem that the entire article may simply be a straight copy-and-paste from sources associated directly with the subject or, perhaps, Monateri himself. It's almost like an academic version of a fan page for Monateri. It's actually remarkable to read those hundreds of lines of text in the Works sections, with absolutely none of them sourced. Not to mention the fact that there are also many clear violations of WP:NPOV. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why anyone on English Wikipedia would want to know about this specific lawyer in Turin (or spend effort writing about him) is beyond me; unless they really love him... History2007 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And he doesn't even have an article on the Italian Wikipedia. Haha. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep probably meets the English WP standards for WP PROF as an expert in his field. The En WP covers the world, and sometimes we cover material that is not yet in the national WP of the subject. I would, however, take seriously an argument that the article had been deleted from the Italian WP. (the article of course will need considerable editing--the exposition of his theories is morelengthy than we usually do). DGG (at NYPL) 21:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Considering that most of the article was basically written in one day, by one person, I agree that it was most likely created as a promotional effort. It was written in 2009, so the rules for deletion of unsourced biographies of living people do not apply here, but I would use the same criteria, and since no proof of notability is available, I vote for deletion. Should the article be kept, however, the section regarding his legal trubles should be reinstated, as they are quite noteworthy and drew significant public attention in Italy (as the sources, among which a major Italian newspaper, prove). --NotANumber (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete (fresh eyes opinion). Per Canoe, 76IP, and History2007.  There is no real claim of notability.  It's not really speedyable, but it pretty much is AFDable.  The guy just seems like a generic professor/lawyer type.  Actually maybe even a little below generic.  There are no references in the works section and the stuff seems pretty incomprehensible. I read the others who wanted to keep the article, but the ones who were plaintive about sources or deleted sources don't really address the key issue that the fellow's works have no notability.  DGG's weak keep has a better articulated view, but I don't agree with him that this fellow meets the threshold of notability as a professor.  Individual profession guidelines are just guidelines and the expectation is not that they trump general judgment of notability...and really...this Italian lawyer has just nothing distinguishing about him. For instance DGG does not expound on what about the fellow's rambling theories is notable. TCO (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears that consensus has been established with overall consistency in reasoning by Canoe1967, JFHJr, History2007, NotANumber, TCO, and myself. And while DGG expresses support for a weak keep because the subject "probably" meets notability via WP:PROF, s/he in no way indicated which of the nine criteria are met. I asked that important question three times in the discussion, yet it was never answered. I think it's particularly telling that Monateri doesn't even have an article on the Italian Wikipedia. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. By doing some on-line researches I have found that Prof. Monateri is the former Rodolfo Sacco's pupil (see  ) and one of the most influential European researcher on the subject of Comparative law (during 1999 - 2003 he was the Director of the journal Global Jurist together with Ugo Mattei [and Mattei is an authority on Comparative Law too, ndr]); so Monateri meets criteria 3, 5 and 8 for | for academics / professors. I agree that the tone of the actual article is clearly promotional and lacks WP:NPOV, but the topic is notable; hence I suggest a reduction of the article and the removal of all the extra frills as required by WP:ATD policies. Toffanin (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. In my opinion Monateri does not meet the notability criteria. Otherwise we would have WP pages of tens of thousand professors. He does not even have an Italian WP page. The Italian reference posted above to prove his notability says: "Jokes and cackles rise to the address of Pier Giuseppe Monateri, Chair of Comparative Legal Systems (in Turin), a student of Rodolfo Sacco. Monateri, also known as the dandy of the Faculty of Law is loved by the the students (even more so the girls) for the disarming frankness with which he announces his skiing holidays. His textbook, Pensare il diritto civile, is made illegible by typos...". LOL!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixosaxo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You used Google Translate on an Italian source, obtaining so a (really) naive translation of the contents and then you used that naïveté to disqualify my previous statements. On top of that, you created a new WP account solely for this purpose; I applaud you, sir, but I still prefer to have common sense and stick to the main point: "Pier Giuseppe Monateri, [...], a student of Rodolfo Sacco", confirms my previous statement. If you have proofs that Monateri was not the former pupil of Rodolfo Sacco, please share them, otherwise someone could mistakenly conclude that your comments are not made in good faith. Toffanin (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ehm... ignoring your personal attack, could we please come back to the topic, Sir? We are trying to prove someone's notability. (i) you admit you had to do "some online researches" to discover that he was the pupil of Rodolfo Sacco. (ii) The only source you cite for that is a newspaper article, written itself in a naive style, in which Monateri is described in a rather offensive way. (iii) If I were a student of a Nobel prize winner, I would not qualify automatically as a notable scholar. (conclusion) Honestly, all this makes me think Monateri is not notable. If he was so, you would have found many more reliable sources to prove his notability. sixosaxo —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * my previous contribution wasn't a personal attack against you as my criticism was directed toward your content and your actions (especially your suspicious account activities). Oppositely to you, I am Italian and I'm perfectly capable to read / comprehend an Italian newspaper and the aforementioned article, from Italian newspaper La Repubblica, does not describe Monateri in an offensive way, neither is written in a naive style, but it's your personal interpretation of that content to be largely naïve and misleading; neither your LOL! is a constructive discussion. I can concede to you that that specific La Republica's article alone doesn't prove Monateri notability, still it doesn't change the fact that Monateri meets criteria N. 8 (but also 3 and 5) as he has been the head of a major well-established academic journal in his subject area. This fact alone is enough to qualify him as notable per WP:PROF. Toffanin (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I am Italian I can very well understand the, if not naive, goliardic nature of the Repubblica article. And Monateri is not described in a positive way in those lines, if you can read Italian irony. My LOL comment was inappropriate (as you know I am new to WP rules and you should judge me for that), but it was my genuine reaction when reading what was proposed as proof of notability, perhaps not the best source, as you also admit. Criteria 3 and 5 are not proven. For Criterion 8, you have provided no source for his appointment as Editor of Global Jurist, and I have found no notice on the website of the journal. sixosaxo (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that both of you mean well and are only interested in doing what's appropriate based on all the information available. So thank you for your great input. First, I have to agree with sixosaxo that there's no proof that Monateri meets any of the WP:PROF criteria, including 3, 5, and 8. If he did, I'd be happy to acknowledge it. By the way, even if Monteri was indeed a pupil of Rodolfo Sacco, that is irrelvant with regard to establishing notability because notability cannot be inherited; Monteri must stand on his own merits. Sadly, 99% of the article is nothing more than overloads of promotional and technical babble that is not even close to encylopedic in tone. Also, the OR and POV violations are overwhelming. So if Monateri is determined to be notable, the article would essentially need to be gutted, as Toffanin so wisely alluded to earlier. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * see,  and  for proof of criteria N. 8; he was Global Jurist's co-Director with Ugo Mattei and Alberto Monti, during the 1999-2003 period. My doubt is: if Monateri is not notable then also Rodolfo Sacco, Ugo Mattei and Gustavo Zagrebelsky must undergo deletion as all of them share the same academic path, curricula, titles and they are all members of, pretty much, the same prestigious scholarly societies and associations. The disparity in treatment of Monateri compared to the aforementioned individuals is blatant and suspicious (IMHO). Toffanin (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There are clear problems. I see no notability established for Global jurist; it's a one-sentence stub with zero reliable sources. And "co-director" with two other guys?? So that's very weak evidence and surely does not establish that he passes criteria 8 of WP:PROF. There's something very fishy going on here. Are there any mainstream reliable sources (newspapers, etc.) that prove Monateri's notability? Or is everything just pages from academic organizations that merely show his listing or profile along with the same other names? I haven't seen any real, credible sourcing that focuses on Montaeri and proves his notability. And the fact that another editor said Monateri's article was deleted from his own Wikipedia (the Italian version) makes me even more suspicious. If someone's notable, it should be fairly obvious. And the fact that the article consists almost solely of completely unsourced, nonsense, and promotional babble makes the case even weaker. The bottom line is... as the article stands now, it's simply unsourced junk. Until an article for him is created that contains solid, reliable sourcing to support his notability, and eliminates the 99% of nonsense content, the article should be deleted. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did another editor say that the article was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here. But even if he never had an article on the Italian Wikipedia, he certainly doesn't have one now, which IMO is extremely telling. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You have misinterpreted the message to which you linked. It did not say that it had been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. It said
 * "The En WP covers the world, and sometimes we cover material that is not yet in the national WP of the subject. I would, however, take seriously an argument that the article had been deleted from the Italian WP."
 * He was saying that if the article had been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia this might influence his decision on the deletion from English Wikipedia, but the fact that he has not yet been covered in it: is not grounds for deletion from en:. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. You're right, I did indeed misinterpret the editor's comment. I fully realize that his not having an article in the Italian Wikipedia is not grounds for deletion, but it does not change my opinion that it's very telling. In any case, the applicable reason I feel the article should be deleted is simple: he is not notable based on all the available information. Further, the bulk of the article is just a bunch of unsourced, promotional jibberish. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2013 (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.