Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Scozzafave

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Scozzafave[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)

Non-notable actress, sourced to vanity publications and unreliable sources. A search of Scozzafave shows nothing beyond the normal rehashed PR ad unreliable sources pointed out here. The rest are casting announcements which are meaningless. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR as no criterion is met/satisfied.Celestina007 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough sources for a page at the moment. Fails WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a lot of enthusiasm to delete my article - it was my very first significant contribution for Wikipedia and I had less experience back then. But I really don't understand now how it works as my article had been reviewed and accepted by three other editors including Onel5969 (that guy retired already), Robby and Sagotreespirit. Those editors didn't ask an questions and didn't dispute that article. Now, it the other way around and someone already cut the links just to show the article is even less notable. I understand it is a free community, but it just makes no sense to me and it puzzles me how Wikipedia has any articles when all the new Wikipedians are discouraged to contribute. --Parksbows (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way however the requirements are made very clear when publishing articles particularly about BLPs and the WP:ONUS is on the creator to make sure it's appropriately sourced and notable but also do your due diligence in assessing the sources for reliability and making sure that their editorial standards are clear. this is completely unreliable, so is this with an added dash of gossipy spam, also completely unreliable and fake per this considering "Claudia Pasos" is actually Regina Casé. Would you like me to continue? Because there are several more identical fake sources like this. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - All new Wikipedians aren't discouraged from contributing, but all public relations spammers are. This article needs to be removed ~~and the creator blocked unless they disclose their clear paid editing ties~~. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans. No paid editing was involved and I clearly declared it on my page. As you could see by my previous comment, I asked the community how it happens that the editors first accept the article (3 editors) and then comes a new team and vote on deletion and also accuse the new comer in all the Wikipedia sins. Kafka would write a great story about Wikipedia, it is a pity he is not alive and I'm afraid if I did any changes to his page, I would be blocked. For now I can only say this: the first editors (who accepted the page) could just have moved the page to the draft (or delete) and explain what was wrong with it. Now, it looks like a circus. And one more thing - just to make everyone feel better - I do not object the deletion if the community finds the article not fit for Wikipedia. It was really nice to meet you all warm and nice people here.--Parksbows (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Parksbows: We are dealing with a large breadth of spam on our site, so it would be wonderful if you could explain what motivated you to write this article, and to use fake/spam sources such as Soul Brazil? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans: Wikipedia welcomes new contributions but has thousand of rules that take a lifetime to learn. I came with the best intentions and curiosity was my only motivation to start as I had no experience in good and bad references and couldn’t see why the article was poor (that cannot be said about those who reviewed and accepted it) . You’ve been on Wikipedia for how long? Since 2006? When I created the page, I was here just a few days and I didn’t know much about good or bad links. See, the websites flood Internet with articles and most of them are spam — covert advertising and promotion is just everywhere. Only when I started writing encyclopedia articles and search for good sources, I began to realize how many promotional articles are everywhere and how hard it is to find a neutral, reliable source. It takes time and experience to acquire this knowledge and I’m sure that everyone at the beginning made some errors. Furthermore, I think the problem wasn’t so big back in 2004 when Wikipedia came to life. What is more interesting is that the Wikipedia community puts all the «burden of guilt» on the shoulders of the inexperienced editor when it was much easier to explain it from the beginning when it was reviewed and accepted. It seems like that I spend more time on explaining my actions than on editing. --Parksbows (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Parksbows: Many new users that start articles using spam sources are here being paid by blackhat SEO firms to increase people's visibility. I'm not trying to be a hardass on you... I just want to make sure you're clearly aware we don't allow paid editing without disclosure on our site. I understand it may have been frustrating to go through this process, and to have your actions so severely questioned. But part of the job of keeping this site maintained involves looking deeply into suspicious actions that may be influenced by outside special interests. As long as you ensure to hold to our sourcing policies here on out, and are being honest about how you used that source, I think you'll be a positive asset to the project. Thank you for explaining your actions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Parksbows:, I understand the dejected feeling you are probably experiencing given that you have put in time and effort to creating an article and it is already being considered for deletion. I, too, have experienced the exact same thing with an article I wrote; my article was deleted. What I have done, however, is to create a "draft" of the article, and I'd suggest that you do too—that is, Draft:Mia Scozzafave. That will allow you to continue to work on the article. It seems that the actress may become more notable in the near future (as I stated below), and so I would encourage you to keep working on it and adding to it with the aim of getting it up to the standards required. I wish you the best. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: It's good to see that sources have at least been provided (regardless of their reliability), but the article seems WP:TOOSOON to me. The actress appears to have several upcoming roles and may become notable in the near future, but I don't think she quite meets the notability standards for actresses yet. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:45, 23 January 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.