Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mezzo Secolo Di Ritornelli

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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo Secolo Di Ritornelli[edit]

[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)

Self-published book by non-notable author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Cilio)×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:NBOOK. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and read carefully It's ABSOLUTELY not self-published, miss Merynancy should get herself a life and stop taking out here her frustrations... Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy. Please get her a life, she needs it. Delete her please, it's obvious she has history with the author and just wants revenge. If an author with 110k followers on Facebook and 100k on Instagram is non-notable, who else is? Please give up with this and go get lives. Torsy
110k Facebook likes and yet his likes haven't made it to the three digits on any of his recent posts? Hmm. I don't know the author personally nor did I know about him before the umpneenth attempt to spam him on it.wiki, which resulted in the indefinite salting of his page. I also wouldn't take the claim that "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy" seriously, as you also wrongfully claimed the unofficial music chart made up by this man is the "Italian primary popularity chart" (not to mention the fact that this book is self-published emerged on the AfD on it.wiki). ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, not sure "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy", but for sure it is an important and authoritative publisher with 50 years of history and important authors in its portfolio. More importantly, the three sources in the article (which include Sette and Adnkronos) are reliable and seems to be the bare minimum to pass GNG. Probably the page was created as part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden, but at least this one seems notable in its own. --151.74.138.45 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Said wall garden was actually rejected and salted from it.wiki because of persistent spam and non-notability, I really don't think en.wiki should be the dumpster of articles the other wikis shunned for all the right reasons. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally agree with 151.74.138.45, Arcana is famous in Italy, Marynancy has history with the author and made it personal. She invented the fact that the book is self-published, while it is under contract with Arcana. Please ban her, she is not able to judge notability since she makes it personal. 46.28.25.172 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Strike logged out multiple votes. Java Hurricane 06:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same thing all over from different IPs won't help your cause. Would you mind logging in, User:Torsellino? ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing I can find to indicate this book meets WP:NBOOK or the WP:GNG. Despite the determined efforts to get articles on this subject and his works onto Wikipedia, the fact remains that Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no reviews found for this book, what is telling is, according to WorldCat, the number of libraries that hold this book is one. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? It’s full of reviews, are you able to read or are you full of envy just like miss mary “who cares” nancy??? Please stop this discussion, it’s censorship. Wikipedia is censorship at its best... The only criteria you use are envy and anger for being nobodies and wannabes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.7.209 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 02:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Java Hurricane 06:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has reviews on SETTE (Corriere della Sera) and interviews on 4 national radios (m2o, Radio Montecarlo, Radio Capital and the most important one, RTL). If this is not relevant what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.165.166 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Strike logged out multiple votes. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time you've said the same thing. No need to repeat your point. This IP is User:Torsellino, by the way. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 16:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go on with your life if you have one. Live your life, don’t try to sabotate the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.211.29 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYBODY PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Stop deleting the “keeps”! This is not Marynancypedia! Ban that user, she has history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.58.110 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove the strikethroughs, you should probably remove the </s> part at the end as well as the <s> part at the start. I've reinstated them because they're there to indicate the belief that these are multiple comments from the same person but different IP addresses. Note that nobody is deleting anything: it's perfectly possible for the closing admin to read the struck comments if they so choose. (PS "She has history" could be read as casting aspersions, which isn't particularly welcome. To quote the Arbitration Committee (from the page just linked), "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page.") YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, “casting aspersions” is exacty what Marynancy is doing, telling a lot of lies for personal reasons. This is it by me. Do what you want but censorship is not the right way to act, Wikipedia is under the spotlight and a lot of users are unhappy about the way you manage things. Totally unknown people are accepted because they are linked to admins, while people who deserve a page are rejected because they are not liked by admins. The only interesting comment is “weak keep” one: Weak Keep, not sure "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy", but for sure it is an important and authoritative publisher with 50 years of history and important authors in its portfolio. More importantly, the three sources in the article (which include Sette and Adnkronos) are reliable and seems to be the bare minimum to pass GNG. Probably the page was created as part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden, but at least this one seems notable in its own. --151.74.138.45 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.169.167 (talk) [reply]

Doesn't change the fact that this article, along with the other two articles related to this author, was deleted and salted from it.wiki for spamming and non-notability. Not every book published on a notable publishing company is automatically notable. As I said before, en.wiki isn't the dumpster of the articles rejected by the other wikis, and this clear attempt of self-promotion should have no place in here. The fact that the original author has to resort to personal attacks from IP in order to defend his article should say it all! ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I've reinstated them because they're there to indicate the belief that these are multiple comments from the same person but different IP addresses." Dear User:YorkshireLad, I've seen that the IPs are from Catania, Milan and Aosta. If you find a map you will notice the three towns are far from each other and, most of all, you will realize that the author is known all over Italy. That's why strikethroughs are totally unfounded as well as Marynancy's comments, that I repeat are influenced by personal reasons. You should ban bad admins instead of good entries. By the way this is my last message, the Keeps are very well explained while the Deletes are unfounded, so use your brain and be METICULOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.238.63.200 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave it un-struck (I don't believe it should be, but I don't want to get into an edit war). For the record, though: as far as I can tell, nobody who's commented on this page is an admin on the English Wikipedia, so "banning admins" has no relevance to this discussion. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @YorkshireLad: but those comments should be struck for two reasons: it's clearly either the same person or a group of people with a blatant conflict of interest, and the "reasonings" are actually personal attacks directed against me due to the lack of arguments to keep this spammed mess that's only here because we repeatedly rejected it from it.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merynancy, I think you're preaching to the converted! I'm sorry, my words weren't very clear: but I agree in principle that the comments should be struck. I just didn't think it was worth getting into an edit war over when the closing admin will (presumably) read this discussion upon closure (presumably sometime today) and see exactly what's going on. If you or anyone else wanted to reinstate the strikethroughs, I wouldn't revert that either. I actually drafted a longer reply to the most recent IP pointing out that it was unlikely that there was an uncoordinated mass movement of people popping up to defend an article with 239 views in the last month, and that IP geolocations are incredibly easy to fake should one wish to, so they don't really prove anything. I decided not to post it, per WP:DFTT. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:10, 15 July 2020 (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.