Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Černetić


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Except for, all agree that the topic is notable and that there are no grounds for deleting the article.

Additionally, I am indefinitely blocking Bajsikus. Their contributions show that they are a single-purpose account who has substantially only edited this article and its AfD. They created the article with non-neutral and promotional (likely self-promotional) content, and then, once others began editing the article, attempted to blank and delete it. Moreover, they have WP:BLUDGEONed this AfD half to death. This is disruptive conduct, and it is apparent that they are WP:NOTHERE to write a neutral encyclopedia.  Sandstein  13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Stefano Černetić

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was prodded, and unsuccessfully nominated for speedy deletion. The rationale for the prod was that it portrays the subject in a negative light as they were acquitted of the charges against them. The original article did include the information that they were acquitted, and in my view gave the bigger picture. This is clearly a deletion with two sides to the argument, and I think needs proper discussion. Therefore I'm bringing it here. Note that the editor who prodded also subsequently blanked the article, so you'll (currently) have to go back in the history to find the text we should be deleting. Elemimele (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ... original material has been restored. Elemimele (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting case, and that's just the provenance of this article, never mind the chap himself! The sources are certainly strong enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The citations also support the contents well enough; I don't even see anything that would need removing for BLP reasons. And given that this person has gone out of their way to ensure they are not a low-profile individual (!), per WP:BLPPUBLIC we can publish well-referenced allegations even if the charges didn't stick o/a/o some legal technicalities. (PS: I foresee an RFPP being needed erelong, though...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They wrote all that to manipulate the public. No one ever accused him or proved that he did anything wrong. Bajsikus (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Italy.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Remove DELETE the written article was heavily edited many times with data from various newspapers and tabloids that were used as references. The person was acquitted or it was not covered in the news. He was also never arrested or detained by the police. Furthermore, he has a good personal relationship with the Prince of Monaco. He never presented himself as the monarch of a country, but that his ancestors were rulers in that territory, the borders changed. He is not an Italian fraudster as proven in Court and this is a text that shows things in a bad light. It's against the law. A person who has been PROVEN innocent, and the Court has established that, is chosen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajsikus (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Remove DELETE he is not an Italian fraudster as proven in court and this is a text that shows things in a bad light. It's against the law. A person who has been PROVEN innocent, and the Court has established that. Bajsikus (talk) Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "his claims were misleading but not legally fraudulent." perhaps mincing words, but he's not telling the truth about who he is, he might not be legally guilty, but he's still been found to be dishonest. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be at GNG, it's an interesting story. So long as we keen neutral language, we should be ok. He's not told the truth but perhaps not tried to use his mistruths to get money from people, which is required for fraud. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They wrote all that to manipulate the public. No one ever accused him or proved that he did anything wrong. Bajsikus (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you've made your views known. What you haven't done is present any coherent argument as to whether this article should be deleted or kept, and why. See the box on top of this page titled 'New to Articles for deletion (AfD)?' for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He's an interesting story as an eccentric person, he did nothing wrong but he's still worthy of note for his actions. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a lot of coverage in reliable publications, more than enough to meet GNG in my opinion. I rewrote the lede to be more neutral. RSes and the trial seem to have determined that this individual is not a criminal but is an impostor, and that's an easy enough distinction to make. It seems like an interesting hook for DYK if this nomination closes in the next week. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  DELETE  The whole article shows the person in a bad light and at the end of the article it is said that he was not convicted in court, so the whole article condemns the person from the beginning and presents him in a way that has been proven not to be so and that he was badly presented and described. Even the artical is passionate and bad at wanting to harm a person. Bajsikus (talk)Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (unrelated user comment) it doesn't matter if the person is painted in a bad light. If what they did is bad, and the reliable sources say their bad, then the page should follow what the ref's say. Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  20:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are only allowed one !vote, please don't keep repeating it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. It's no featured article, but it is well-researched, and a reasonable topic for Wikipedia. I originally found the article from the Teahouse, where I saw the creator begigging for it's deletion? I'm assuming the author is just a big fan of his (or possibly him, but I'm assuming good faith here) but that doesn't justify any sort of deletion. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I want to thank you. You're right about missing the bigger picture. In a lot of editing, the truth was lost and it went in the wrong direction. A lot of introductory facts and information were deleted and edited and thus totally changed the article, which now does not have those essential and key facts, and thus the article is damaged, at the same time the reputation of a person and casts a shadow on the credibility of Wikipedia. Bajsikus (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - As said before, this article is well-researched, notable, and somewhat neutral. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 DELETE  before someone got involved, the article read differently. It was full of facts describing the person, his historical background, his ancestors, the sequence of events as they really were without bad news and tabloids, bad news fabricated to tarnish someone's reputation. Unfortunately, it is everyday. Whoever deals with editing and revision of such a specific nature as heraldic heritage, nobility and history, must do his homework well and learn in both cases the history of the Balkans, the countries that existed and how the dynasties changed over the centuries. It is very complex in the territory of the Balkans, like everything in that territory even today. Stefano Černetić is a descendant of an old Crnojević ruling family, after which Montenegro got its name, and their ancestors were ruling families in the Roman Empire, these are all the facts. The original article which may have been clumsily written but true, which has been totally edited and which contains the facts, read as follows Stefano Černetić, Crown Prince of Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Macedonia, of Orthodox religion and dual Serbian and Italian nationality, was born in Trieste, Italy, on 29 April 1960, married to Charoula Dontsiou, of Greek nationality, and the father of two sons, Crown Prince Konstantin, and Prince Ivan-Nenad.

Stefano, baptized Stefan, is also the father of a daughter, Natalija, by Barbara Donat Cattin, granddaughter of the Italian minister Carlo Donat Cattin, historic deputy secretary of the Christian Democrats.

Professional journalist and humanitarian diplomat for some Austrian, Swiss and Hungarian NGOs, Stefan Černetić comes from the family, also known by the variants Crnojević, Čarnojević, Cernovic, Csernovics and Cernovichio/Zarnovicchio, who reigned over Montenegro and gave the small Balkan state its current name; in fact before it was called Zeta; as well as on Albania, having a Stephen Černetić Duke of Zeta married Maria (or Mara), sister of the Albanian hero Giorgio Castriota Scanderbeg, and on Serbia and Vojvodina with Tsar Jovan-Nenad Černetić in 1526, the last sovereign before the Ottoman conquest.

Also famous is the patriarch of Peć and head of the Serbian Orthodox Church Arsenius III Černetić (Čarnojević, Cernovic, Csernovics, Csernovits), who in the years around 1690 led the famous exodus of the Serbian and Montenegrin people (perhaps 40-80,000 people) in Hungary, through agreements with the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary Leopold I, who repopulated and rebuilt that nation after the Turkish devastation. In Transylvania, now Romania, the Černetić princes received the castles of Mácsa, today Macea, and Zam, enfeoffed with the titles of counts of Mácsa and Kis-Orosz, a town in Vojvodina also known as Čarnoevićevo, today Rusko Selo.

Two statues of Ivan Černetić are in Montenegro in Cettigne and Podgorica, and one of Tsar Jovan-Nenad Černetić in Subotica, Vojvodina, Serbia.

The Tchernetich princes, direct descendants of the Byzantine emperors Angelus Flavius Komnenos Palaeologus, as widely documented, adopted various surnames and nicknames in Montenegro, as with other ruling houses, as in the Balkans surnames changed with each generation until the early twentieth century.

Also known to the world press for having given the noble title of "Countess of Lilies" to the American actress Pamela Anderson, during an evening at Villa Durazzo, in Santa Margherita Ligure, he is known for his various and continuous participations in Rai television programs and Mediaset.

In 2017 he was served with a notice of investigation, undergoing a trial that had great media coverage. The case involved the government of Montenegro, the Montenegrin embassy in Rome, the Italian ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Interior. It was also the subject of a parliamentary question on the initiative of MEP Carlo Fidanza, of Fratelli d'Italia. The trial ended in 2023 with an acquittal sentence "because the fact does not exist".

The criminal court of Turin therefore also recognized his royal princely titles and the dynastic claims of Stefan Černetić, recognizing the existence and veracity of his imperial and royal lineage.

The family of the Chernetic princes lives in four states: Italy, Greece, Serbia and Germany: Turin, Athens, Belgrade and Esslingen Am Neckar (Stuttgart)." These were facts, but now Wikipedia is giving false information, THAT'S WHY I'M BEGGING FOR THE ARTICLE TO BE REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajsikus (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bajsikus, you can only cast ONE "vote" so please stop bolding your comments. I have struck your second, third and fourth votes. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The article that was edited was badly edited, because it is necessary to distinguish the former titles and borders and that the branches changed a lot over time in the Balkans and also the dynasties, which often went against each other. This is how this person finally proved his belonging to an important historical family. The problem starts because the person who edited the article immediately spoke in a ostentatious tone and in the end still says that he belongs to a noble family. It does not make sense. The whole story is poorly presented without knowing the entire history of Crnojević, Čarnojević, Skanderbeg and all other noble families that were totally deleted from the original article. This is exactly why confusion and conflict arise.Bajsikus (talk)Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that reliable sources have enough to say about this fellow (and more than they do about such socialites as Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern or the current "Prince Napoléon"); thus keep. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am amused by the fact that the creator of the original article that was promoting this individual's claims is now begging for its deletion because an alternative view of their claims has since been given greater emphasis in the article. I suspect a strong, undeclared WP:COI here. A salutary lesson in how not to use Wikipedia to promote one's favourite topic! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (un-involved user comment) I was also thinking COI, but I wanted to Assume good faith about the user.  Babysharkboss2 was here!!  X ♡ O  13:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seem to be plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. AndyJones (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets GNG, sourcing is sufficient. Seawolf35 T--C 17:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You only get one vote. Babysharkboss2 was here!!   X ♡ O  13:41, 17 January 2024 (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.