Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Letizia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. The page does not qualify under CSD:G11, so the question of "spam" is moot. Same goes for whether the article exists on other wikis. In the end, the only relevant question is whether there is significant coverage about the subject that establishes notability. And this question has not been satisfactorily answered, despite the urging of a relisting admin. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Letizia[edit]

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

Claudia Letizia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam. After the article of Claudia Letizia in Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, the author of the Italian article created articles of Claudia Letizia on 30+ Wikipedias. @Giammarco Ferrari: Please explain the detailed situation if you can. Sanmosa Outdia 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I know that each Wikipedia project has its own encyclopedic rules, however you can find the deletion procedure in Italian here. As you can see, it is also confirmed there that she has only had roles as a competitor in TV programs or as an extra in a couple of movies. The character is still on the English Wikipedia because, I'm told, being on the Italian Big Brother is enough for that Wikipedia. On the French Wikipedia, however, they replied that the entry is because "it is present on many Wikipedias", which would be absurd according to the rules of it.wiki. As you can see for yourself, when the author saw his Italian Wikipedia page deleted, he then created minimal entries on another thirty Wikipedias for promotional purposes (today Letizia actually has an OnlyFans profile as you can read here). Regards Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least according to the source of the English article, there are at least 3 reports of her on Il Mattino, so she not just only has OnlyFans profile. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three references in voice (all dated 2018) are two from Il Mattino and one from Il Giornale. Two of them (Il Giornale and Il Mattino) report the same news (she stated that a maniac chased her and tried to masturbate in front of her) and the one from Il Mattino reports her being a commentator on a radio program regarding sexy topics. Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if it is a CSD G11 case. Sanmosa Outdia 11:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given coverage she has received in various media, no, absolutely not. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have mentioned does not have direct relation to it's compliance with CSD G11. Sanmosa Outdia 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it does. If there are reliable sources covering any subject, then the article covering the subject can be rewritten from a neutral point of view. And, anyway, this article was not even (let alone exclusively, for that matter) written from a promotional point of view. You are, I think, assuming the creator had a specific intent. User:Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino is a regular on the It WP and he has also made a number of contributions here. None of them has been challenged for being "spamming"/advertising, which is a quite serious accusation. Anyway, I have improved the page with sources and hope it does address the issue. Feel free to rephrase/remove anything you find written in a promotional tone. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I think the sources only give trivial mentions? Also, "none of them has been challenged for being 'spamming'/advertising" may just mean that no people have previously discovered the problem. Sanmosa Outdia 04:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just casting aspersions and for the third time, it's a quite serious accusation. Please let's stick to the article without assuming people's intentions; which leads us to you your first statement/question (?): no, I'm sorry, just read the sources, in most cases, they're directly addressing her and her career. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the information page that you have mentioned tries to forbid me from raising any rational and reasonable possibilities. Sanmosa Outdia 13:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. "Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack." or "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:CO" seem pretty clear to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing me of accusing others of misconduct, I think you have totally misinterpreted my intention. Sanmosa Outdia 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I coud reply: please don't accuse me of accusing you of accusing others.... More seriously, have I "totally misinterpreted your intention"? Well, sorry if I have, but you have repeatedly described the article as spam: it’s the first word in your rationale (your first sentence actually); then My main point is 'spam', not 'notability'; then Even if you have the sources, if you write it like a spam, it is a spam., your mention of G11 (whose template documentation states "it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic") etc.. Now which is it? Spam or not spam? If you say the page was created as a spam, then, you are implying the creator did it with the intent to spam and, I'm sorry, but it is a serious accusation, especially when it concerns a very experienced user. Or did you mean that it is an "involuntary spam"? Then that is not a spam and please choose another wording ("it has a promotional tone"), another rationale ("does not meet criteria for notability of people"), etc. Anyway, as I said multiple times, I think Letizia meets GNG. Kindly allow other users to express their views, thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told, being on the Italian Big Brother is enough for that Wikipedia That is not correct. It just means that WP:A7 does not apply and so speedy deletion is not supported. It does not mean that notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry then, I misunderstood. Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the 2018 "simplified deletion discussion" in Italian linked above by Gianmarco Ferrari, has 2 users voting keep and 2-3 concerned about promotional content, fwiw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) ....And the quote from the Fr. Wikipedia deletion debate concerns only ONE user upon 4 or 5 Keep !votes.....Also note that Gianmarco Ferrari (a regular of the Italian WP, whose good faith I am certainly not questioning) has put CSD tags on the pages about the subject in various versions of Wikipedia and taken other to Afd....(again FWIW) possibly on every language in which the page exists.... For transparency's sake, let me add that I declined the ones in Picard and Luxembourgish and voted Keep on the SpWP.[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly meets general requirements for notability. Added a few of the numerous existing sources (much more exists).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if she meets notability requirements, if the article is in fact spam, meeting notability requirements does not bar the article from deletion (WP:GNG: '"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.'). My main point is 'spam', not 'notability', I hope that you can understand this. Sanmosa Outdia 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I hope I can understand this too. But if it meets the requirements for notability how could it possibly be a spam? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would seriously doubt your general understanding on texts. Even if you have the sources, if you write it like a spam, it is a spam. Sanmosa Outdia 04:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can doubt whatever you want but I would rather focus on this article in particular, if possible. Is the page written "like a spam" now? What does "written like a spam" mean? Again, describing pages as spam implies a serious accusation concerning the users who create/edit the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then you may try to comprehend the content of the "Biography", and you would find that those mentions regarding Ms. Letizia are all trivial, especially the sentence "She starred in the musical Carosone, with the singer Sal Da Vinci, in which he played Maruzzella…" makes it being even clearer that she is not really the topic to be introduced in the sources. Sanmosa Outdia 13:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I can't understand your comment. Again, most sources added address her directly and mentions of her are not trivial. She does imv meet GNG. Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please prove that they are really not trivial. I have proven that they are trivial already. Sanmosa Outdia 05:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read the definition of trivial on WP and open the links. Thank you. I have proven that they are trivial already.....hmmm....no, not at all....how could you have done so? You've quoted a sentence from the article and commented on it in a way I did not even understand. I am NOT going to copy-paste here the tons of text in Italian about her from the sources; please open the links; this is beginning to be ridiculous. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC) (NB- I removed the end of the sentence you quoted (for information, in case other users want to check)).[reply]
    條目寫的又不像G11（The article has not reached the level of G11, and Italian Wikipedia can consider restoring the article.） 日期20220626 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that I generally disagree with your misunderstanding on spams and advertisment. Sanmosa Outdia 04:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    沒事啊，讓管理員來判斷（It's okay, let the administrator decide.），而且你看看上面的留言，英維這邊在刪除條目方面可不見得比中維容易。 日期20220626 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don’t mind, can we use English on this page? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanmosa is a Chinese Wiki user, and the Chinese I sent was specifically for him to read. 日期20220626 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, please don't. I see you're having that debate there but here please do it in English. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @日期20220626: Yes, per Mushy Yank, it is totally unnecessary to write your comments in Chinese here, I can normally read and write English (and sometimes it may be more convenient for me to read English than Chinese). Sanmosa Outdia 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behavior and demeanor are the same whether on Chinese Wikipedia or English Wikipedia, haha. 日期20220626 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: clear spam cross-wiki case. "Sources" make clear that this person is/was? "relevant" for being a contestant during 3/4 weeks at italian Big Brother. Today she is an aspiring actress/model with no notability at all. I think this entry relies entirely on WP:RECENTISM and possibly WP:PROMO, WP:NOT basically. PedroAcero76 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly, as Mushy Yank said, I asked for immediate deletion in many of the Wikis where the entry on Claudia Letizia is present and I did it because I hate spam campaigns as I believe this one is and above all for the fact that in some Wikis, such as the French Wikipedia, it was answered in a previous discussion regarding the cancellation a few years ago, that the entry should be kept as "the entry is present on many Wikis", which, from my point of view view, it's like rewarding the creator of the entry because he wrote it very quickly on a bunch of other Wikis. Fortunately, on many of the Wikis the entry was immediately deleted, on others - such as the one in Chinese - some users are instead waiting for the Judgment of the Wiki in English. However, a discussion about cancellation has been opened on almost all of them (I should have opened the one in French and I haven't done so yet). Furthermore, just as I have requested deletion on many Wikis, Mushy Yank (whose good faith I do not doubt) has on several occasions, as he recalled, rejected the request, and on other occasions, such as the Spanish Wikipedia, voted against deletion being discussed (for now he was the only one to do so and that was his first contribution to Spanish Wikipedia...fwiw). According to Mushy Yank it is not spam and the subject meets the encyclopedic requirements, but I am increasingly convinced that it is not, since I have read the sources reported above (even those added after this discussion), and they do not add anything new to what has already been said: the subject took part in some TV programs as a competitor, including 4 weeks on Big Brother, after which she had the role of an extra in some movies and ended up in some newspaper articles because "a maniac tried to masturbate in front of to her". Thank you
Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Mushy Yank has on several occasions, as he recalled, rejected the request: several, no, only the two I mentioned myself above. If CSDs on other Wikipedias (Romanian, for instance) have been declined that was by other users; and on other occasions, such as the Spanish Wikipedia, voted against deletion being discussed No. Plural is inaccurate. Only on the one I have myself mentioned, in Spanish, indeed. And I had indeed clearly said that myself so that you repeating it was not exactly necessary, especially if you present the facts inaccurately. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Two" are "plural", "one" is "single". In Spanish you seem to be what in english in called WP:SPA, and you did not say it clearly that was your first Spanish Contribution...fwiw. By the way, I do not doubt of your good faith, But it is better to say all the things, so that all users can form an opinion having all the elements. Thank you Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your own first comment and my reply again with more attention, please: your statement was inaccurate and misleading. SEVERAL IS MORE THAN TWO AND ONE IS NOT PLURAL. As for the rest, no comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also said that you eliminated the deletion requests on the Luxembourgish and Picardy Wikipedias, but you also failed to mention that those were your first and so far only contributions to those Wikis...fwiw. In this regard, are you sure that as your first intervention in a Wiki you were allowed to remove a notice that, usually, only administrators can remove? Of course, I still don't doubt your good faith. Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picard, not Picardy, the language not the region. Ask them. This is not the forum for reporting WP:SPA or other (imaginary or real) issues on other Wikipedias. To be honest, I am seriously starting to doubt the sincerity of your repeated assertion that you are assuming good faith. And by the way, this page is not about me, in case you haven't noticed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is not a productive discussion. Making accusations, trying to define what is or isn't spam doesn't help us come to a decision on what to do with this article and the longer this AFD gets, the lower the chance that other editors will want to come and participate in it. This is not the correct forum to make comments on user behavior, either here and on othe Wikipedias, even less so.

Instead, a source review would be helpful. A formal review would be very useful, a general comment saying that sources prove GNG or sources are trivial do not help others. What we are seeking is opinions from more uninvolved editors as we already know where the editors here stand on ths subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will add Here some info about the TV movies:

2009: "7 vite". She does not appear in the cast.
2010: "La nuova squadra".She does not appear in the cast.
2015: "1992", She does not appear in the cast.
2015-2016: "È arrivata la felicità", She does not appear in the cast.
2018: "È arrivata la felicità 2", She does not appear in the cast.
"Un posto al sole" is an italian soap opera with more than 6400 episodes and she appears in 4/5 episodes in an extra role, as ten Thousand people.--Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, it is quite unbelievable to me how easy is to Insert an entry full of spamming statements and how hard is to remove that entry. Few post ago Liz asked for a source review and I posted evidences of how all the Letizia's roles in the TV movies listed in the entry were actually extra roles, as she does not appear in any cast of those movies. For the other TV shows enlisted in the entry, she was just a contestant, not a member of the cast. If you had read the discussion on the deletion of the entry made on the Italian Wikipedia you would have noticed it immediately, since it was already clearly written that there is no mention of this woman in the casts of the films or shows. Although each project has its own rules, reading the reasons why an entry was deleted from a project can still be useful. How much more testing and discussion is needed to eliminate obvious spam from Wikipedia? Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Claudia_Letizia&oldid=1215577818"