Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 12

Davide Locatelli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Davide Locatelli's page was in draft for two months and was subsequently approved for publication. After a while it was questioned and a debate with conflicting opinions opened up. I believe that the cancellation of the page is not justifiable, as it has come to a unanimous opinion. I also reiterate my opinion: in Italy Davide Locatelli is an established pianist, with the Sony label. Searching on Google (especially in the Italian results), the main Italian newspapers have written and are writing about him. He is doing a lot of things in America too. I, being the author of the page, am fully available to edit the content, add other sources that make the element more relevant, but I would like the deletion of the page to be restored. Thank you - Diegoferralis (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll not going to undelete it so that you can then maybe add more sources. Present your sources first - bearing in mind the advice at WP:THREE - and we'll consider it. —Cryptic 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your answer @Cryptic. Should I attach the sources here, in this discussion? Diegoferralis (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, please, or ideally in a draft.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, can you confirm that I can recreate the page: "Draft: Davide Locatelli", so I can directly update the page with the new sources? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's in order.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In the meantime, I am attaching here the latest articles, from the most important newspapers, concerning the artist, so as to be able to discuss his possible presence on Wikipedia.

  https://www.ilgiorno.it/spettacoli/davide-locatelli-1.6679710

  https://themillennial.it/cultura/musica/davide-locatelli-imagine-pianoforte-consolato-ucraina/

  https://tg24.sky.it/spettacolo/musica/2022/03/02/pianista-davide-locatelli-imagine-consolato-ucraina-milano-video

  https://www.allmusicitalia.it/news/inno-milan-davide-locatelli-pioli-is-on-fire.html Diegoferralis (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic Can I have an opinion on these sources that I have attached? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin comment: courtesy ping @Liz @Praxidicae @Numberguy6 who were involved in the discussion on User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Page:_Davide_Locatelli. As nominator was more interested in aspersions rather than understanding consensus, we're here. I believe then and now that my close reflected consensus but am not formally standing in the way of any decision here. Star Mississippi 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - The statement by the appellant is in Italian rather than in English. Please either translate it or close the appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Diegoferralis (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would say the sources look acceptable and I'm tentatively minded to permit a brief, neutrally worded article about Mr Locatelli. I'm not sure why it was deleted from it.wiki and I would just like to understand that.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall Thanks for your reply. I would like to understand it too :) I believe that on wikipedia Italy the page has been created and deleted several times over the years by different users, and this has probably affected. He is an artist who has published several discs, has made multiple appearances on TV in important programs, is quoted on many sources in important newspapers, collaborates with equally important artists. I just can't understand what doesn't allow the artist to stay on wikipedia. Diegoferralis (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi Could I have your other opinion regarding the sources I have attached and the opinion of @S Marshall? Beyond the dispute over the closed page, can it change your opinion on whether this page can be on Wikipedia? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I prefer to remain neutral on any restoration since I closed the AfD. I will say that this appears to be a very good source. My Italian isn't great so it's based on an assist from google translate. Creating a draft might be the easiest solution here, which I believe was what @S Marshall was also suggesting. Star Mississippi 19:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Draft:Davide Locatelli This is the page published in draft, I await your opinions on it. Thanks @S Marshall@Star Mississippi Diegoferralis (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I understand what are the steps to follow now? Is the page eligible or not? Do we have to wait for other opinions or can proceed to make the page public? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone will close the discussion and may or may not weigh in on the draft. AfC and DRV tend to be different groups of editors but the closing admin might decide to make a decision on both simultaneously. Star Mississippi 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK thanks. Greeting Diegoferralis (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While creating it and adding references in Draft may have been appropriate, and is somethig I have no quarrel with, submitting it for review is akin to asking the other parent. It feels like an attempt to game the system, and I find it not to my taste. Neither accepting it there nor declining it there is useful since it short circuits this established review system. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you haven't followed the story. The page had already been in draft for 2 months, was approved, and it was subsequently decided to delete it. I opened the deletation review here because in my opinion there was no unanimity for the cancellation. The "important" sources were already on the page, but they were probably not analyzed correctly. The same user who deleted the page here says the sources look ok. Here the users asked to put the page in draft, to get an opinion on the matter. So there is no attempt "to game the system", of any kind. Diegoferralis (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PanaBIOS (African Union) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Editor IAmChaos deletes any PanaBIOS articles within seconds of posting. The article is about a seriously notable African COVID-Tech project/platform that is extensively researched and referenced. I have reviewed in great detail Wikipedia's policies and believe that IAmChaos has absolutely no grounds for these speedy deletions when he could not possibly have read the article within the timeframe that he/she has been deleting the articles. IAmChaos appears to be motivated by some perverse political or personal agenda against African-related subject matters that have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. The editorial decisions are rushed, reckless, and suspicious. They are clearly disruptive. We totally believe that PanaBIOS is an important project that deserves documentation on Wikipedia, having been covered extensively and connected with very notable actors in Africa and beyond. Quodprod (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you on my talk page, I did not nominate the draft for deletion. I nominated a redirect that was in violation of policy for deletion twice. Now that I have said that for a second time, please revise your statement. Also, do not accuse me of perverse political or personal agenda against African-related subject matters I have already quoted WP:NPA against you once today. Also this is a completely malformed request. Also, I did not delete any page, I literally CAN not delete a page, I am not an administrator. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been speedily deleted twice - once at PanaBIOS and again at PanaBIOS (African Union). Neither deletion was by IAmChaos. Rather than seeing through the DRV process, Quodprod has recreated the article again - so I have tagged it for speedy deletion again. - MrOllie (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, MrOllie, you have tagged the article for speedy deletion because you do not feel inclined to do the diligent review necessary to establish that the 30+ references establishing both objective notability and clear neutrality of the subject matte of the article are in fact rebuttable. Both the earlier speedy deletion decisions were conclusory and should not have happened. The article relates to an active area of scholarly, academic and geopolitical interest and plugs the gaps in current coverage, which is highly deficient on African-focused content. Speedy deletion was not created to serve the arbitrary tastes of editors. There should be better evidence that the article is written merely to promote the initiative as opposed to providing useful knowledge about a clearly notable matter pertinent to the encyclopaedic coverage of the COVID-19 phenomena, especially in relation to technology dimensions of the pandemic. Quodprod (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Quodprod, and welcome to DRV. I think the article you wrote has been moved to Draft:PanaBIOS. You come across to me as very passionate and rather cross. Could you tell us, what's your connection with PanaBIOS, please?—S Marshall T/C 07:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear @S Marshall, I am a very frequent traveller in Europe, N/America and Africa. Throughout the pandemic, I observed how these new screening technologies were being deployed and receiving attention. I used PanaBIOS many many times across Africa, and more recently elsewhere too. Yet, whilst wikipedia seems to have kept pace with developments in this area in the global north, there is a persistent blackout on coverage of trends in Africa and the global south. I took it upon myself to fix this anomaly. I am beginning to see that Wikipedia articles on global topics skews heavily to Europe and North America. Given my context, this is a subject worth being passionate about. Quodprod (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. We Wikipedians are often accused of bias by people who are angry about our rules, and we've grown very accustomed to it. Calling us "biased" will not get the article published. Please be kind to our volunteers. We need articles that are strictly neutral. Why is the draft so promotional?—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Marshall, I am not being cantankerous. Believe me, I have read that article a hundred times and can't fathom what in it or about it is "promotional". Everything I have added is in a matter-of-fact tone. So far, no one has pointed to any specific aspect of it or particular piece of content that can be described as "promotional". I simply did a ton of reading, found credible reports that describe exactly what it is and what it does. And I have faithfully recounted as best as I can. I will of course take a hard look at any specific element of the narration that is clearly pointed out as promotional. Everything I have written is what reputable, independent, sources have mentioned as relevant about this initiative. Happy to see specific rebuttals or counter evidence. Thank you.-Quodprod (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have blocked Quodprod indefinitely for persistent promotion and likely undisclosed paid editing, see my block rationale on their talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]