Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santi Bonfanti


 * 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. In reaching this conclusion I have accorded less weight to a number of the keep !votes, because they made a bare assertion of notability by virtue of position. However, the proposition that simply holding the position of general officer is sufficient for notability has not been accepted by the community; indeed, WP:MILPEOPLE itself merely reads that normally individuals holding these positions will have sources to show notability. In this case, the sources have not been produced despite challenge. I am sensitive to the difficulty in dealing with foreign language sources, and am prepared to userfy if someone is interested it continuing to source the article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Santi Bonfanti

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not seem to meet General notability guidelines, specifically "Significant coverage" and "Independent of the subject". All of the sources about the subject are military public affairs type publications. The Italian version of the article was deleted on 3 August 2010 as unencyclopedic or promotional it:Santi Bonfanti. EricSerge (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a very well written article, but seems to be a distinguished and highly decorated Italian officer. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. General officers are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Leaving aside the editorial issue that the article is basically a disaster, the sourcing supplied is either plainly incidental or sourced to a press release. As for the Keep !votes above, I'm curious (sincerely so, because it will probably change my vote) if there is any specific piece of the notability guidelines that supports including Brigadier Generals and/or decorated army personnel in the absence of proper sourcing. I'm not aware of any such guideline or precedent, but that certainly doesn't mean none exists. If none exists, my vote is definitely a delete based on the sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There does appear to be a fair amount of coverage on this person. I will try and do some cleanup and tag the article for rescue. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. I'll check back in a bit then! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Brigadier General Santi Bonfanti is the commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). That seems rather notable.  They have people being killed on both sides there.  And he gets coverage for this.   D r e a m Focus  21:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Commment I don't think it's splitting hairs to point out that he's a Deputy Commander. Not "the commander." That's simply inaccurate and misleading. I note with interest that he's not listed/mentioned on the UNIFIL Mission Leadership page. How about supplying, here or in-article, some of the coverage you mention? I'm personally okay with changing my mind on this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Deputy commander. Just click the Google news archive search button at the top of the AFD.   D r e a m Focus  22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, I did that before voting. I haven't found any articles in the GNews search that are actually about him, although he has been quoted in a few articles. Being quoted is not significant coverage, per WP:GNG ("address the subject directly and in detail"), although I note that academics are often ascribed notability on the basis of being considered an authority on certain subjects. Perhaps that could apply to Mr. Bonfanti in this case, but I'm very uncertain about that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There only appears to be about 5 English sources. Given that this person is an Italian Major General, there may be stronger coverage in Italian news sources. Several of the Italian Google news search results appear to be quite substantial. It might be of benefit to have an Italian speaker take more detailed look. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A cruddy resume for a long-serving civil servant in a uniform, currently seconded to the commander of UNIFIL as his press spokesman. This "highly decorated officer" has accumulated his braids and baubles by (a) climbing the greasy pole high enough to have a magical star or two pinned to his collar and, (b) just by being around long enough. I will grant that this is classier than the private sector these days--we just hand out gift cards—but where, pray tell, is the evidence to suggest that this person is notable? And please spare me the sources in the article and the obvious ones to be found in English and Italian Google searches—I've looked, and I think it's clear what my view is. Am I being mean? Sure, but may I remind you that our colleghi over at Italian WP have never even reached an AfD with this guy, they've just speedied him out—three times. Show me the money substantial evidence of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This gave me my chuckle of the day Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 01:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Goodyear said it all. Neutralitytalk 21:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Isn't it interesting that an article about Dee Ann McWilliams, an American general who has only served in administrative appointments (and is thus, to use Goodyear's somewhat insulting terminology, very much a "civil servant in a uniform"), is recently snow kept after several editors (including myself, as I have done above) opined that all general officers were inherently notable under WP:MILPEOPLE, whereas this article about an Italian general who has actually served in several command appointments has received several delete votes. Not that Wikipedia editors set the notability bar much higher for non-American subjects of course... -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with your point: the notability bar should be the same for American and non-American subjects. And I appreciate your calling the Dee Ann Williams AfD to my attention. I believe that its lightning-fast closure was incorrect and have asked the closing admin to reopen, at which point I intend to vote to delete there, as well. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep General officers are generally considered notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin. When weighing the value of the bare "generals are notable" votes, please bear in mind that WP:MILPEOPLE is not policy and is not even a guideline. It is an essay that, when put to the vote, was solidly rejected as a guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is formed in AFDs usually. I've seen high ranking military officers who commanded a force in notable military campaign have their articles kept before.  How many people participated in this guideline vote, and where was it done at?  Was it just some aspects of it, or did people reject all of it?   D r e a m Focus  14:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion here, vote here. Voters here who think that it is enough merely to demonstrate that subject is a general are of course entitled to express this view, even though it has no foundation in policy or guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep big wigs such as this guy have a lot of info about them available but its hard to find a good neutral bio and he is notable for his high position.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2011 (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.