- 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. Consensus seems to be that there is not enough substantial and non-self-published coverage for this topic to be notable. Google Hits are not a gauge of notability because among other things they do include a lot of stuff that isn't substantial or non-self-published. Also, if I am allowed to state such an opinion, can we not use strong words such as "tyranny" when discussing what a web URL on a website is going to link to? Tyranny refers to things that gets people actually hurt or even killed, much larger in scope and more serious than this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Michele Di Salvo
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Michele Di Salvo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite the bombardment of references, this seems to be a non-notable author. Most of the citations are self-published sources or passing mentions of Di Salvo, and a search for sources myself returns pretty much the same. Note : I declined an A7 tag soon after creation with the suggestion it should go to PROD or AfD instead; unfortunately this wasn't followed up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment--i think that this note I declined an A7 tag is correct.And if there is some editing to do is wellcome.Any suggestion? Cavecanem101 ( talk) 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I was tempted to send this article to AfD before, but I thought the nominator's A7 rejection comment meant that there are significant Italian sources. Since that's not the case, the subject clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Plenty of references point to works written by the subject, but he doesn't seem to be the subject any in-depth reliable coverage. Rentier ( talk) 10:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain - I think 1,2 million entries on google are enough to keep this page. [1].Perhaps some experienced editor should integrate notes and sources. 93.44.55.169 ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — 93.44.55.169 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- A quick Google search shows 2.25 million hits for Donald Trump's hair colour, but strangely enough we don't have an article for that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to say that this is a real stupid reply. Google refer of articles in pages where you will (anyway) find in the same page "Donald Trump + hair + colour" - i make a sample search ONLY on name and surname with "+" - and i posted link to... If want to be serious ok. If want to joke... Cavecanem101 ( talk) 22:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Really,
Ritchie? I thought you were a more mature than that. Rather than taking a logical approach to things, you feel like wanting to simply joke around. Do you honestly think you can compare hair color to a living person, who people affirming the retention of this page seriously are putting their time and energy into making a page for the good of the hundreds who want to read the page? Not what I expected of a Wikipedia editor of your caliber. Shame on you, Ritchie. Shame on you.
98.26.19.147 (
talk)
01:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair is a real debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Really,
Ritchie? I thought you were a more mature than that. Rather than taking a logical approach to things, you feel like wanting to simply joke around. Do you honestly think you can compare hair color to a living person, who people affirming the retention of this page seriously are putting their time and energy into making a page for the good of the hundreds who want to read the page? Not what I expected of a Wikipedia editor of your caliber. Shame on you, Ritchie. Shame on you.
98.26.19.147 (
talk)
01:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per Rentier's point, the article subject does not seem to have accrued significant coverage about himself. He has written about some notable subjects, but very few of the cited sources cover the article subject in depth, which fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. After viewing nihlus kryik's comments, it is clear the subject fails WP:GEOSCOPE-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain
Research
|
|---|
|
I read this comment and although I'm not practical I'm following this page.I used non google but the "find source" indicated at the top of the page. |
Cavecanem101 ( talk) 14:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — Cavecanem101 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Retain- As creator of the page, I can give you some reasons why I thought the subject of this page is notable enough for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. Firstly, clear ways that good Wikipedia editors determine notability is through clear Google searches. As others have said, if you Google "Michele Di Salvo" on the American AND Italian sites, you will find tens of thousands of entries. While my additions of appropriate references may not have been adequately representative of the subject, plenty more exist on the internet that can be used. I highly recommend that instead of pursuing a deletion, which should, in my opinion; be reserved for obvious vandalism, incomplete and incohesive articles, and ones that are advertisements. This article was created because I have heard about and greatly admire his work, not because I had any need to make money off of creating this page. Further, to prevent misunderstanding, this great admiration never carried into this article into nefarious forms like advertisement. I believed that he was well deserved of a Wikipedia page, was plenty notable enough, and has produced enough work to designate a page within the world's largest reference site. What I've noticed many editors on Wikipedia do detract from the freedoms people come to Wikipedia for. Having tyrannical control over each and every Wikipedia page and writer and deleting them left and right doesn't solve anything, it just takes away a tool someone somewhere in the world could have used to learn about Michele. I wish you all will work together to make this page a perfect representative of Wikipedia values, purging it of mistakes, and strengthening it's position. This pages has had hundreds of views in the few months it's been live. Don't remove material unless it cannot be made better. Show us all with your verdict that Wikipedia isn't a hostile place, rather a place where the world can come together and educate the future. Please leave messages below if you have any questions or comments. Buddhabob ( talk) 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain-I do not know all those comment on a very famous italian journalist . In anycase he is very followed and responsive on twitter @micheledisalvo.And all those discussions are really depressing.W a free wikipedia. Out wiki-dictators.(Anna from Italy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b07:6444:b7cf:bc59:1336:5396:5661 ( talk) — 2001:b07:6444:b7cf:bc59:1336:5396:5661 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - Ignoring the number of meatpuppets in this AfD, this article fails multiple notability guidelines per Rentier. Author also has no interest outside of Italy. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 19:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe that here you are not trying to understand and understand, but just repeat indefinitely by three editors (friends with each other) always the same thing: "delete" - ignoring everything else. for the moment you only made a bad figure in Italy. https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10155403037370528 https://twitter.com/micheledisalvo/status/904771746087280640 [ Nihlus Kryiksince google trend that fits blog searches is an index of interest or quotations?] Cavecanem101 ( talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment :Odd that the subject of the article is aware of our current situation. This smacks of COI, and is treading to close to outing as the article subject mentions this Afd. Considering Di Salvo is a journalist, more meatsocks may be incoming-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Reply to SamHolt6 If you see the article (if need i can do a translation) you can understand what is wrote there. Are you interested? I do not think really.
| Comments by the article subject are irrelevant. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 23:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For all... this is the complete translation (in my very bad english) "Of stories about wikipedia I've heard so many, and I confess that despite my work, I have been very little busy with it. As everyone knows, Wikipedia is a "good thing" - I say it immediately to avoid possible misunderstandings on this topic - the idea of a "free and free-to-know meeting" as a major world encyclopedia with millions of "contributors" is a which fascinates and relies on itself. Not without the many risks it involves: inaccuracy, loud mistakes, often lack of sources, and the great ease with which "everything is believed" in the web, to the point "if it says wikipedia ... " I remember a case that concerned Umberto Eco, who wanted to correct some information about himself - who better than him? - his interventions were "rejected", or because they "lacked a source" or because "he was not a sufficiently authoritative contributor". There are a lot of cases in which, unfortunately and in spite of wikipedia, they are spreading misleading information on delicate topics like those related to medicine and therapies. And no, you do not say that wikipedia is "without politics and without religion and without parts." Wikipedia is managed by people, and as such sometimes "hired" and others responding to their (legitimate) personal, cultural, political, and religious convictions. Sometimes it may happen that "minority" groups in society are also "very active" on the web - and this could lead (for example, and as a paradox) that Scientology fans are much more active than Johns Hopkin's doctors ... here, how do we put it? My case is much more trivial, and I wish it was a matter of discussion rather than partisanship. In 2014 it was made - not by me that I got very little - a page about me on Wikipedia in Italy. Of course he was immediately canceled after my appointment as a journalist of the day by Beppe Grillo. And you know ... the webbe is his. [I found that something like this happened on Salvatore Aranzulla's page - you can find everything here http://www.bergamopost.it/chi-e/perche-il-mitico-salvatore-aranzulla-e-stato-cancellato-da-wikipedia /] A few months ago, before the summer, a page was published in English about me. Not bad, I did not know anything (if I did not do it better :-P), but I'm flattered. A guy sends me a private message on twitter and asks me some news to update her content. There is little harm here. Today I find out - why an Italian user informs me by sending me their links - about a sort of guerrilla about me ... ... you find it all here. This is the /info/en/?search=Michele_Di_Salvo page and this is the standing question /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michele_Di_Salvo Now, I do not - really - a personal matter. But I wonder, really a page can be questioned because one wakes up one morning and says "I think I was paid" without evidence and sources or anything else? Really an editing is not "putting the source well" and counts more to say "is not good enough"? Would this be the wikipedia I mentioned at the beginning - and that everyone thinks it is and should be? And if it is so - for charity, just say it - is always the "if wikipedia says it will be true then?" I edit editing on wikipedia I understand little. I put some notes and corrected some voices. But these fake digital warriors love me a little. A bit like all the fake, the various anonymous keyboard playing online." [1] SamHolt6 ask how possible he know about this discussion? In article is wrote clear " A few months ago, before the summer, a page was published in English about me. Not bad, I did not know anything (if I did not do it better :-P), but I'm flattered. A guy sends me a private message on twitter and asks me some news to update her content. There is little harm here. Today I find out - why an Italian user informs me by sending me their links - about a sort of guerrilla about me ..." You are interested in the truth? obviously no! Cavecanem101 ( talk) 22:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
- Delete--Per above.No non-trivial covg. about the subject. Cavecanem101 may be reminded that in case of excessive disruption by his virtual accomplices, the page can be protected--preventing any edit by single purpose accounts. Winged Blades Godric 06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Replyto
Godric "excessive disruption" ..."his virtual accomplices" have not you been prevented? do not you have any preconceptions?noooooooooAs you can see here, there is not any massive or bot, or spam, imagining (maybe in your virtual world that works so, real life is another thing).What I see is a massive call of friends on your part.if this is your way to conceive wikipedia, who loses it is wikipedia, quality and reliability. you are doing a great job (and a bad international figure, with these warming on conspiracies, multiple accounts, suspicious of all kinds)
Cavecanem101 (
talk)
11:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Have a good day:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 10:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Replyto
Godric "excessive disruption" ..."his virtual accomplices" have not you been prevented? do not you have any preconceptions?noooooooooAs you can see here, there is not any massive or bot, or spam, imagining (maybe in your virtual world that works so, real life is another thing).What I see is a massive call of friends on your part.if this is your way to conceive wikipedia, who loses it is wikipedia, quality and reliability. you are doing a great job (and a bad international figure, with these warming on conspiracies, multiple accounts, suspicious of all kinds)
Cavecanem101 (
talk)
11:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural comment Given the number of extremely obvious sockpuppets here, none of whom are making policy-based arguments, I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting this AFD until its projected expiry time. In the unlikely event that you are a genuine user who has been on Wikipedia for less than four days and have fewer than ten edits but nonetheless have managed immediately to come across the article for an extremely obscure figure, post your policy based comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michele Di Salvo and the closing admin will take them into account. ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to back out of this now. I see obvious meatsocking happening in this article and I do not wish to put my account at risk. I will not be blamed for meatsocking or violating Wikipedia policy because other people are doing it. This decision lies in the hands of whatever administrator comes across the article. A tyrannical website will be a tyrannical website and I won't throw myself under the bus. Thanks for the input everyone. Buddhabob ( talk) 23:31, 6 September 2017 (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.
- 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. Consensus seems to be that there is not enough substantial and non-self-published coverage for this topic to be notable. Google Hits are not a gauge of notability because among other things they do include a lot of stuff that isn't substantial or non-self-published. Also, if I am allowed to state such an opinion, can we not use strong words such as "tyranny" when discussing what a web URL on a website is going to link to? Tyranny refers to things that gets people actually hurt or even killed, much larger in scope and more serious than this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Michele Di Salvo
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Michele Di Salvo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite the bombardment of references, this seems to be a non-notable author. Most of the citations are self-published sources or passing mentions of Di Salvo, and a search for sources myself returns pretty much the same. Note : I declined an A7 tag soon after creation with the suggestion it should go to PROD or AfD instead; unfortunately this wasn't followed up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment--i think that this note I declined an A7 tag is correct.And if there is some editing to do is wellcome.Any suggestion? Cavecanem101 ( talk) 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I was tempted to send this article to AfD before, but I thought the nominator's A7 rejection comment meant that there are significant Italian sources. Since that's not the case, the subject clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Plenty of references point to works written by the subject, but he doesn't seem to be the subject any in-depth reliable coverage. Rentier ( talk) 10:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain - I think 1,2 million entries on google are enough to keep this page. [1].Perhaps some experienced editor should integrate notes and sources. 93.44.55.169 ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — 93.44.55.169 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- A quick Google search shows 2.25 million hits for Donald Trump's hair colour, but strangely enough we don't have an article for that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to say that this is a real stupid reply. Google refer of articles in pages where you will (anyway) find in the same page "Donald Trump + hair + colour" - i make a sample search ONLY on name and surname with "+" - and i posted link to... If want to be serious ok. If want to joke... Cavecanem101 ( talk) 22:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Really,
Ritchie? I thought you were a more mature than that. Rather than taking a logical approach to things, you feel like wanting to simply joke around. Do you honestly think you can compare hair color to a living person, who people affirming the retention of this page seriously are putting their time and energy into making a page for the good of the hundreds who want to read the page? Not what I expected of a Wikipedia editor of your caliber. Shame on you, Ritchie. Shame on you.
98.26.19.147 (
talk)
01:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair is a real debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Really,
Ritchie? I thought you were a more mature than that. Rather than taking a logical approach to things, you feel like wanting to simply joke around. Do you honestly think you can compare hair color to a living person, who people affirming the retention of this page seriously are putting their time and energy into making a page for the good of the hundreds who want to read the page? Not what I expected of a Wikipedia editor of your caliber. Shame on you, Ritchie. Shame on you.
98.26.19.147 (
talk)
01:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per Rentier's point, the article subject does not seem to have accrued significant coverage about himself. He has written about some notable subjects, but very few of the cited sources cover the article subject in depth, which fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. After viewing nihlus kryik's comments, it is clear the subject fails WP:GEOSCOPE-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain
Research
|
|---|
|
I read this comment and although I'm not practical I'm following this page.I used non google but the "find source" indicated at the top of the page. |
Cavecanem101 ( talk) 14:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — Cavecanem101 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Retain- As creator of the page, I can give you some reasons why I thought the subject of this page is notable enough for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. Firstly, clear ways that good Wikipedia editors determine notability is through clear Google searches. As others have said, if you Google "Michele Di Salvo" on the American AND Italian sites, you will find tens of thousands of entries. While my additions of appropriate references may not have been adequately representative of the subject, plenty more exist on the internet that can be used. I highly recommend that instead of pursuing a deletion, which should, in my opinion; be reserved for obvious vandalism, incomplete and incohesive articles, and ones that are advertisements. This article was created because I have heard about and greatly admire his work, not because I had any need to make money off of creating this page. Further, to prevent misunderstanding, this great admiration never carried into this article into nefarious forms like advertisement. I believed that he was well deserved of a Wikipedia page, was plenty notable enough, and has produced enough work to designate a page within the world's largest reference site. What I've noticed many editors on Wikipedia do detract from the freedoms people come to Wikipedia for. Having tyrannical control over each and every Wikipedia page and writer and deleting them left and right doesn't solve anything, it just takes away a tool someone somewhere in the world could have used to learn about Michele. I wish you all will work together to make this page a perfect representative of Wikipedia values, purging it of mistakes, and strengthening it's position. This pages has had hundreds of views in the few months it's been live. Don't remove material unless it cannot be made better. Show us all with your verdict that Wikipedia isn't a hostile place, rather a place where the world can come together and educate the future. Please leave messages below if you have any questions or comments. Buddhabob ( talk) 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain-I do not know all those comment on a very famous italian journalist . In anycase he is very followed and responsive on twitter @micheledisalvo.And all those discussions are really depressing.W a free wikipedia. Out wiki-dictators.(Anna from Italy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b07:6444:b7cf:bc59:1336:5396:5661 ( talk) — 2001:b07:6444:b7cf:bc59:1336:5396:5661 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - Ignoring the number of meatpuppets in this AfD, this article fails multiple notability guidelines per Rentier. Author also has no interest outside of Italy. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 19:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe that here you are not trying to understand and understand, but just repeat indefinitely by three editors (friends with each other) always the same thing: "delete" - ignoring everything else. for the moment you only made a bad figure in Italy. https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10155403037370528 https://twitter.com/micheledisalvo/status/904771746087280640 [ Nihlus Kryiksince google trend that fits blog searches is an index of interest or quotations?] Cavecanem101 ( talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment :Odd that the subject of the article is aware of our current situation. This smacks of COI, and is treading to close to outing as the article subject mentions this Afd. Considering Di Salvo is a journalist, more meatsocks may be incoming-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Reply to SamHolt6 If you see the article (if need i can do a translation) you can understand what is wrote there. Are you interested? I do not think really.
| Comments by the article subject are irrelevant. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 23:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For all... this is the complete translation (in my very bad english) "Of stories about wikipedia I've heard so many, and I confess that despite my work, I have been very little busy with it. As everyone knows, Wikipedia is a "good thing" - I say it immediately to avoid possible misunderstandings on this topic - the idea of a "free and free-to-know meeting" as a major world encyclopedia with millions of "contributors" is a which fascinates and relies on itself. Not without the many risks it involves: inaccuracy, loud mistakes, often lack of sources, and the great ease with which "everything is believed" in the web, to the point "if it says wikipedia ... " I remember a case that concerned Umberto Eco, who wanted to correct some information about himself - who better than him? - his interventions were "rejected", or because they "lacked a source" or because "he was not a sufficiently authoritative contributor". There are a lot of cases in which, unfortunately and in spite of wikipedia, they are spreading misleading information on delicate topics like those related to medicine and therapies. And no, you do not say that wikipedia is "without politics and without religion and without parts." Wikipedia is managed by people, and as such sometimes "hired" and others responding to their (legitimate) personal, cultural, political, and religious convictions. Sometimes it may happen that "minority" groups in society are also "very active" on the web - and this could lead (for example, and as a paradox) that Scientology fans are much more active than Johns Hopkin's doctors ... here, how do we put it? My case is much more trivial, and I wish it was a matter of discussion rather than partisanship. In 2014 it was made - not by me that I got very little - a page about me on Wikipedia in Italy. Of course he was immediately canceled after my appointment as a journalist of the day by Beppe Grillo. And you know ... the webbe is his. [I found that something like this happened on Salvatore Aranzulla's page - you can find everything here http://www.bergamopost.it/chi-e/perche-il-mitico-salvatore-aranzulla-e-stato-cancellato-da-wikipedia /] A few months ago, before the summer, a page was published in English about me. Not bad, I did not know anything (if I did not do it better :-P), but I'm flattered. A guy sends me a private message on twitter and asks me some news to update her content. There is little harm here. Today I find out - why an Italian user informs me by sending me their links - about a sort of guerrilla about me ... ... you find it all here. This is the /info/en/?search=Michele_Di_Salvo page and this is the standing question /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michele_Di_Salvo Now, I do not - really - a personal matter. But I wonder, really a page can be questioned because one wakes up one morning and says "I think I was paid" without evidence and sources or anything else? Really an editing is not "putting the source well" and counts more to say "is not good enough"? Would this be the wikipedia I mentioned at the beginning - and that everyone thinks it is and should be? And if it is so - for charity, just say it - is always the "if wikipedia says it will be true then?" I edit editing on wikipedia I understand little. I put some notes and corrected some voices. But these fake digital warriors love me a little. A bit like all the fake, the various anonymous keyboard playing online." [1] SamHolt6 ask how possible he know about this discussion? In article is wrote clear " A few months ago, before the summer, a page was published in English about me. Not bad, I did not know anything (if I did not do it better :-P), but I'm flattered. A guy sends me a private message on twitter and asks me some news to update her content. There is little harm here. Today I find out - why an Italian user informs me by sending me their links - about a sort of guerrilla about me ..." You are interested in the truth? obviously no! Cavecanem101 ( talk) 22:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
- Delete--Per above.No non-trivial covg. about the subject. Cavecanem101 may be reminded that in case of excessive disruption by his virtual accomplices, the page can be protected--preventing any edit by single purpose accounts. Winged Blades Godric 06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Replyto
Godric "excessive disruption" ..."his virtual accomplices" have not you been prevented? do not you have any preconceptions?noooooooooAs you can see here, there is not any massive or bot, or spam, imagining (maybe in your virtual world that works so, real life is another thing).What I see is a massive call of friends on your part.if this is your way to conceive wikipedia, who loses it is wikipedia, quality and reliability. you are doing a great job (and a bad international figure, with these warming on conspiracies, multiple accounts, suspicious of all kinds)
Cavecanem101 (
talk)
11:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Have a good day:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 10:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Replyto
Godric "excessive disruption" ..."his virtual accomplices" have not you been prevented? do not you have any preconceptions?noooooooooAs you can see here, there is not any massive or bot, or spam, imagining (maybe in your virtual world that works so, real life is another thing).What I see is a massive call of friends on your part.if this is your way to conceive wikipedia, who loses it is wikipedia, quality and reliability. you are doing a great job (and a bad international figure, with these warming on conspiracies, multiple accounts, suspicious of all kinds)
Cavecanem101 (
talk)
11:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural comment Given the number of extremely obvious sockpuppets here, none of whom are making policy-based arguments, I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting this AFD until its projected expiry time. In the unlikely event that you are a genuine user who has been on Wikipedia for less than four days and have fewer than ten edits but nonetheless have managed immediately to come across the article for an extremely obscure figure, post your policy based comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michele Di Salvo and the closing admin will take them into account. ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to back out of this now. I see obvious meatsocking happening in this article and I do not wish to put my account at risk. I will not be blamed for meatsocking or violating Wikipedia policy because other people are doing it. This decision lies in the hands of whatever administrator comes across the article. A tyrannical website will be a tyrannical website and I won't throw myself under the bus. Thanks for the input everyone. Buddhabob ( talk) 23:31, 6 September 2017 (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.