Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dario del Bufalo

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. There is substantial coverage of the subject that has been unearthed below. While there is some concern that the subject is primarily known for one event, others point out that coverage of this discovery has persisted for years. Consensus appears to be that the subject is notable based on the guidelines at WP:PROF. Malinaccier (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dario del Bufalo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP1E. The majority of the article is about an antiquity he discovered. Notability is not inherited. It's possible that the artifact could warrant an article (I haven't determined if the refs about it are independent or reprints of the same story. If so, then this should redirect if such article is created). MB 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and Architecture. MB 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Keep. Seems notable based on sustained coverage about him over years:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/roman-mosaic-long-used-coffee-table-returned-italy-180966968/

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/nov/22/priceless-roman-mosaic-coffee-table-new-york-apartment

https://www.insider.com/nyc-coffee-table-relic-ancient-roman-emperor-caligula-yacht-2021-11

https://www.universitadeimarmorari.it/soci/dario-del-bufalo/?lang=en

He is the author of many books:

https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3ADario+del+Bufalo&s=relevanceexprank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=24&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=12&unfiltered=1&ref=sr_adv_b

Academic papers write about him:

https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/2616273

He is mentioned many many times in Google Books Search

BLP1E is really about the decision point between an article about the person or the event. If an event (Discovery of table...) existed, then I'd find this easier to agree with, but there is such an overwhelming amount of sources about him, I ask the nominator to explain how none of them establish notability. CT55555 (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is not a lot of significant coverage about him outside this one event of finding a lost museum piece. As far as his publications, the criterion for authors is at WP:NAUTHOR and requires more that just writing works. MB 01:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about WP:AUTHOR. I was really taking this all together and applying the logic I quote below from WP:BASIC. I'm still not sure of myself on this one, but do still lean keep. I'm open to being persuaded though. CT55555 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong WP:NAUTHOR is, as it says, for "Creative professionals". He's not one of those, as a scholar, archaeologist and academic. WP:PROF applies. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CT55555, well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a vast array of material to catalogue here books he has written and papers he is cited in.. The Caligula table is simply what he has received the most attention for. He is the author again of numerous volumes which I am adding as well as his academic credits. Strattonsmith (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources mentioning the subject are primarily about the discovery of a historic artifact, which was a news story in 2021 that died down after a couple of weeks. CT55555, self-published books (of which there are admittedly quite a few) do not contribute to the subject's notability. Whether mentions in other books actually amount to significant coverage can only be determined by reading them. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is from 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/roman-mosaic-long-used-coffee-table-returned-italy-180966968/ I made the same mistake as you I think, but I think what actually happened is that the 2017-ish event remained in the news for years. Which is what shifted me towards arguing keep. I wonder if that changes your thinking? CT55555 (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through quite a few sources and none of them feature what I'd call significant coverage of the guy. Every single news article I've seen is centered around the artifact and features at most a few lines about him, but even then, only in relation to this one particular artifact. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar impression. Which is why I went with "I think keep" but on the other hand every place I looked (news, scholar, books) had hits. So I was thinking of the guidance at WP:BASIC that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" and therefore leaned towards keep. CT55555 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the guideline, but I'm arguing that coverage is exclusively trivial. There simply doesn't seem to be enough fodder for a proper encyclopedic article. The nominator's argument seems persuasive to me; if anything, an article should be created for the artifact. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's borderline. I respect your opinion. And I'm still not certain about mine. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Only some of the volumes are self published many are not so the assertion that they all are is a blanket misstatement.Strattonsmith (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was not as has been characterized a one off occurrence leading to a Jack in the box notoriety when he discovered the Caligula parked boat mosaic in New York City, it was an incident which came to pass due to his knowledge and eye for the mosaic and his academic background in the field. It is a pretty epic thing to rediscover a lost national treasure from antquity. You can say coverage died down after a few weeks but I posit that it is a story which will be long remembered. Strattonsmith (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Let me quote Throast Whether mentions in other books actually amount to significant coverage can only be determined by reading them. Well they are on Google books and is it not your onus to read the mentions before passing judgement or just to conveniently pass over them. Second you just refer to the mosaic as some historical artifact as if it were of some small scale rather then the key story it has played out in over the ages.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Well referenced. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. Also fails WP:BLP1E as all of the independent refs revolve around a single event. None of the independent sources are directly about del Bufalo. WP:SIGCOV requires that the sources address the topic "directly and in detail" which these sources do not. The Smithsonian, Guardian, and Insider pieces only briefly mention Dario del Bufalo in passing and do not address his work as either an academic or author in any detail beyond his role in bringing to light a long lost artifact. He is not the primary subject of any of these secondary references (which are all about the Caligula artifact and its location in the apartment of an antiquities dealer where it was used as a coffee table), and while reliable and independent, they do not constitute significant coverage of del Bufalo as they are trivial mentions. The only reference we have of del Bufalo where he is mentioned "directly and in detail" is the Università dei Marmorari (it:Università dei marmorari) bio where he works. As such, that source lacks independence. Additionally, we have zero critical reviews of his work as an author, and there is no evidence that he meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Merely demonstrating that he has written published works is not enough to demonstrate notability under our notability criteria for authors.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Academics and experts on academic subjects (the latter applying here) are only rarely the primary subject of sources. They should be judged by their contribution and in this case the sum total of his contribution to art and archaeology is considerable. That ought to be enough. Zero^talk 07:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF; WP:NAUTHOR is the wrong test. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.