Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuliano Mignini

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. The consensus at this time seems to be to keep the article, but this does not mean it cannot be re-nominated at a future date. Those in favor of deletion note that there is no available information for a biography and those in favor of keeping say there is. The article is less than a month old. I would suggest letting it be for a couple more months to see if anyone can add any useful biographical information before renominating for deletion. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Mignini[edit]

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

WP:NOTSCANDAL This article lacks any verifiable biographical information because it is not publicly available. The page as it stands only exists to question the reputation and credibility of the individual. I would suggest the content should be split into The Monster of Florence article (which currently has nothing on him mentioned, even though it has been cited as grounds for notability) and into either Murder of Meredith Kercher (the only article to link to him) or Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (if it continues to exist) and probably given a good review to ensure that it is not being given undue weight. Connolly15 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I often favour redirection over deletion, but there is a real question here of where exactly the redirect should point to (i.e. MoF or MoMK?) This article is basically a ~~WP:BLP2E~~ Could have used a better link to illustrate my argument, possibly WP:CONTENTFORK. Super Mario Man 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) - while there is significant involvement in two high-profile court cases, practically nothing else about the subject himself is worthy of note (even his date of birth seems to be a mystery). The lower half is simply a content fork of MoMK, and the information relating to MoF could just be merged into that page. I can't help but feel that the creation of this article was poorly-timed and very much in haste. Super Mario Man 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like you have not read your own link to WP:BLP2E which I will quote here for you: "BLP2E or Subjects notable only for two events is not a policy on Wikipedia. It is a misconception of some editors that WP:BLP1E can be extended to two (or more) events. Arguments invoking BLP2E as a reason someone is not notable are outside of policy and fallacious. It invokes induction where it doesn't apply. It is similar to saying that a hamburger stored at room temperature will never rot because if it is edible now, it is also edible a microsecond later." Dougbremner (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not read the banner at the top of WP:BLP2E, which states that the page reflects the opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is not an authoritative policy or guideline. My point is that instead of offering any kind of balanced overview of the subject's life, this BLP is almost exclusively dedicated to a small handful of events with which he is connected, essentially forming a content fork of other articles (or should that be POV fork?) Super Mario Man 15:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMM, I think the point is that you made an argument that seemed to point to a WP policy/guideline supporting your view, when in fact it is not a WP policy/guideline and it directly opposes your point of view. I mean, go ahead and make your point, that's fine. But why make the point in a condescending and arrogant tone when it looks like your original opinion was not as accurate or clear as it could have been.LedRush (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still trying to get my head around 'that' response. I certainly won't waste that much time in the future. It is just argumentative and banal. Dougbremner (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, the link was a poor choice, and for that I apologise. That aside, in my original comment I still went on to explain quite clearly how I believed that the article was unsatisfactory (i.e. the lack of unique, non-WP:CONTENTFORK text). Super Mario Man 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reason Mignini is known at all in the English-speaking world is for the Kercher case, and--relatedly--because he rubbed Doug Preston the wrong way, which led Preston to make him the villain in his 2008 MoF book, which in turn allowed Preston to give many more interviews than if he hadn't made Knox's prosecutor a central character. So Mignini really is a one-event guy, who doesn't even have his own page in Italian wikipedia, and given that he been portrayed so badly in the English speaking media I see a lot of potential for BLP abuse and not a lot of up-side. Brmull (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of biographical material about him in reliable sources that hasn't been added to the article yet, and it's material that sheds light on issues in both the Kercher and Monster of Florence cases, which could only be summarized in these other articles. There are 199,000 Google hits for his name, 20 in Google Books, and several news articles or book chapters devoted almost entirely to him. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been live for almost 2 weeks and I raised this issue a few days ago. It was only after it was nominated for deletion that some biographical information was added (by you only I believe) and it seems to all be cited to one book - "A lot" of information seems to be missing if you have it in reliable sources. I have looked through a lot of the Google hits (mind you not 199,000 worth) and most are covering the same story - the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. (Connolly15 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. This is a man who has publicly accused twenty three different people of involvement in Satanic rites. If this was the 17th century, and his name was Matthew Hopkins, these people would be dead. He thoroughly deserves his own article, and each case, and accusation needs to be detailed. We need a list of the twenty people indicted over the doctor's suicide. Amandajm (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:NOTSCANDAL. Although this may be true, Wikipedia is not a venue for a witch hunt and you cannot write articles about living persons which only seek to attack them. (Connolly15 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A Google search between 1/1/2001 and 10/31/2007 (day before the murder) filtered as follows: "giuliano mignini" -2008 -2009 -2010 -2011 -knox -preston, gives 14 hits. The number one hit is an obscure essay Mignini wrote on Christianity and the law. This is not notable man apart from the monster he has been been portrayed to be by his two nemeses. Brmull (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to say of worth or value about the man beyond his involvement in a few overly-sensational court cases. What will come out of a bio such as this, then, will just be a laundry list of criticisms and catcalls from his detractors, particularly from the Amanda Knox fan club. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. Relevant content can be dealt with in other articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the latest updates the article isn't anymore against WP:SCANDAL, because we now have a bio with some basic informations and balanced informations about the episodes he was involved in. Objections about WP:BLP2E aren't relevant about the deletion (as explained there). What happens on it.wikipedia (page speedy deleted years ago) isn't relevant here 'cause they have different criteria about notability. --Juanm (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a ton of biographical information about him that is not yet in the article, and the person is incredibly notable as having been a prominent part of two incredibly high profile court cases. It isshocking to me that this is even up for discussion. The notability guidelines are met easily. Those editors here who argue that the information should be in MoMK or the Trials article (which should be one article) are the some of the same who argued that Knox's info should also be those articles, but then object to the inclusion as off-topic or non-notable. This would seem to be the case here as well (much of Mignini's info simply doesn't belong in the other articles) The one issue that should be addressed is with regards to BLP concerns. Of course, that is a reason to be vigilant regarding the content of the article, not to delete it.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I wasn't questioning notability. I raised BLP concerns, which were not addressed by the editors of the article (and I tried to find the information myself without success). Some progress has been made to address the distinct lack of biographical information but only after this deletion request was made. Unfortunately, the "ton of biographical information" was excluded from the article originally, which seems to suggest it was not created with the intention of being a biography at all. I'm happy to see a couple of authors are now making efforts to address the BLP concerns, though the ton of biographical information, in my opinion, is still not there - and what has been added all comes from one source, which seems to suggest the information is actually not that prevalent. (Connolly15 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, a quick look at the references suggest that the biographical information comes from about 3 pages of one book. Quite a bit of basic information about him, in my opinion, is still missing. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that the legitimate BLP concerns must be addressed.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, happy days, we are now citing stories from The Sun about him without even mentioning that our source is a tabloid! Definitely presenting a legitimate neutral point of view... (Connolly15 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per SlimVirgin and LedRush's persuasive arguments concerning this notable individual who has been discussed in reliable soruces. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis that he had a fairly significant role in a couple notable events. There is certainly more than routine coverage here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fundamentally disagree with the approach that this Wiki article is taking (especially now) - I can guarantee that anyone in the future who is found not guilty where Mignini is the prosecutor will feel sympathy for Amanda Knox and express it, try to write a book and try to sue for damages - and the tabloids will pick it up. Are we going to include everyone? What about all the successful convictions he's brought since 1979? Oh wait, we can't include those, because funny enough the media doesn't report them... most definitely not presenting a neutral case. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

That view doesn't make any sense. Mignini isn't notable because he sometimes unsuccessfully prosecutes defendants. He has played an important role in two of the biggest murder cases in the last 100 years in Italy. That's what makes him notable. And the media was reporting on Mignini far before Knox and Sollecito were found innocent on appeal. Like when they were found guilty at the lower level. He had just as much media attention then. Let's not make this into something it isn't.LedRush (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So, why are we including content about the unrelated prosecution of Bulgari? (Connolly15 (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If it's picked up by reliable sources, it may be included, but we'd have to be careful of putting undue weight on not-very notable subjects. I took your comment above as an argument against an article and responded to it as such. If that is not your view, and you are merely discussig the inclusion of Bulgari, wouldn't the article space be better for this?LedRush (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just went to the page. It seems that Bulgari is notable enough to have her own WP article, and that reliable sources covered this case (like CBS news). Seems fine for inclusion to me. And, of course, it strengthens the case for this article to survive deletion. Still, the best place for the argument seems to be the article's talk page.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the CBS News source all it does is cite a British tabloid (The Sun). (Connolly15 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: The obvious notability of this chap as established by English-language sources alone is indisputable. Nevard (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has the appropriate amount of biographical information for a subject such as this and a long list of WP:RS. It also meets the WP:BLP criteria for notability, which is the only thing that should be the topic of discussion here. Disclosure: I am the article's creator. Dougbremner (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An "appropriate amount of biographical information" that seems to be limited to the first two lines of the introduction and the one-and-a-half-line paragraph that makes up the section ambitiously titled "Education and career". The rest is pretty much just a rehash of sections of Monster of Florence, Murder of Meredith Kercher and Brigitta Bulgari. Fifteen out of the 27 "RSs" (apparently, something that was originally reported in The Sun now passes the test for reliability) include the name "Knox" in the title, which is rather suggestive (at least to me) of what this "BLP" is really about. Super Mario Man 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mignini has made desperate efforts to silence all opponents and critics through legal channels. He even succeeded in having Google close down Frank Sfarzo's excellent blog, for a short time. Wikipedia is a grass-roots organisation and should not fall victim to such bullying tactics by Mignini and his supporters. If the information is factually accurate, then this page should be allowed to stay Susandeoliveira (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the WP:BLP criteria for notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think she ment this one - WP:Notability_(people) Dougbremner (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever was meant, it was just was WP:VAGUEWAVE "vote" to be dismissed. Nothing at all of substance. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 major events, both very widely reported and of national or international importance. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "2 major events" are actually related: There was almost zero media coverage of Mignini's involvement in the MOF case until the Kercher case came along and some people sought to draw a parallel. I checked the article again today and it looks like a stub that has been drawn out by repeating similar information in different ways. Despite the encyclopedic tone, there is an unmistakeable sense that the page is devoted to airing Mignini's dirty laundry. Brmull (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2011 (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.