Alberto Frigo

Alberto Frigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Preposterous 100,000-byte autobiography written entirely by the subject himself (via several accounts), this violates a multitude of Wikipedia policies. Although the subject may be notable, the only way out of the problem seems to be WP:TNT and block or ban all three of the accounts from directly editing any further recreation or iteration of it. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt for practical reasons, since a) it was requested at last AfD and b) the article subject has shown such a strong interest in managing and expanding this 100,000K article. It's simply not worth our time to fight it.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:NOTTUMBLR, WP:NOTLINKEDIN, WP:NOTPROMO. Acnetj (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete-Nuke this stuff.Non-salvageable.But, no prejudice against recreation.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A serious discussion should precede the disqualifications written in the nom and later.--178.223.66.25 (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC) — 178.223.66.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Stubificate and full protect to prevent further abuse. It's clear the subject will not stop, ever. Whack-a-moleing the inevitable socks and IPs will be a waste of everyone's time. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I understand the reasoning for the nomination and feel I could make a great argument for Deletion, in that “Wikipedia is not Facebook. However, in researching the subject I’ve got to admit, he does meet our guidelines for Notability. Do I care, like or support the way the article is written No. But that is not a reason for deletion. We are an organization with 100,000+ of volunteer editors. I’m sure one will pick up the challenge and bring the piece to within acceptable parameters. In the meantime “Protect” the piece with only approved editors allowed to contribute.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The volunteer army did nothing to prevent the transition from 18K to 100K. That's understandable, given the particular zeal of the subject in editing their own page. Page protection would still allow the problem accounts to contribute.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Understand but still have to say “God bless” and sign them up….we could use more volunteers with this zeal:-). And just to expand a little bit on my rational, once an article has been deleted, we can no longer correct it, we can no longer develop it and more importantly we can no longer improve it. Once an article it is Deleted, even if the subject is found to be notable, and notability does not go away, but this article did. We may disagree with the langue, tone and content of the piece, as an individual, however, the area that is subject or individual is still notable and as such should be here at Wikipedia. Thanks for listening.ShoesssS ^Talk 17:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the last AfD. Just to be clear, this is not a notability discussion-- everyone agrees he is notable. The only question here is whether it would be better to WP:TNT and keep it or delete it and recreate it at some point. The amount of work the subject is putting us through is unacceptable, and in these cases deletion may be justified.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh for me this is not work. It is something I enjoy doing and volunteer my time to do. As an individual, how this AFD goes does not affect my personal life one way or the other. However, I have always believed in Jimbo reason for starting this site. The free distribution of man’s knowledge through a medium that is accessible to all without regards to wealth, race, and gender and so on and so on. Just the free distribution of knowledge. He set up guidelines on what should be included here in Wikipedia and the one that has always floated to the top is Notability. If something is notable it is Notable. Once that is established, the subject has gained the ticket to be included here at Wikipedia. Regardless of the subject. Now regarding tone, content, grammar and so on and so on of the article that is up to the consensus of the individual editors here at Wikipedia but the consensus not the individual. As always, thanks for listening.ShoesssS ^Talk 18:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Godric stubbed the article today like Alexander the Great,[1] and was reverted by the IP 178.223.66.25 who has commented above. I re-reverted to Godric's version and then discovered some copyright violation in the remaining stub, which I removed.[2] So now the article is quite short. I do suspect, merely from the style, that there is more copyvio still, but I haven't been able to locate any by Googling. Possibly there might be text from this 2006 Wired' Magazine article which was offered as a source (now removed in my copyvio removal), but which I can't now access, so perhaps Google can't either. I don't even understand the page Wired shows me. Would somebody more savvy like to take a look? Bishonen | talk 20:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]