Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Macario

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Macario

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

Much ado about no relevant activities. Some months ago several users noticed all sources were WP:SELFPUB, one of the single purpose-accounts watching this page replaced them with articles from blastingnews all written by users (blasting news is a collaborative platform) whose sole activity was writing about Macario. This page has been widely spammed by a number of sockpuppets and open proxies. Please don't let you be fooled by all those exaggerations: "under the auspices" is a generic (and way common) formula which can be used for almost anything. He definitely fails WP:PROF but also fails WP:GNG: as there should be only two mentions in relevant newspapers, though I wasn't able to check them. Also related pages are way questionable (non relevant unrecognized educational institutions). Finally I cannot understand the need for a photomontage (check the lights) but that's a minor issue. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion the article has nothing to do with WP:PROF. The only sentence that mentioned an academical institution, which you removed for unclear reasons, was about University of the People, which is accredited in the US, so it is not true that the university is "unrecognized". Anyway, your allegations should be substantiated: for example, if you believe that the sources make false or irrelevant statements, you should also say why. As for the website uk.blastingnews.com which you don't seem to like, according to the page http://www.blastingnews.com/staff/ it is a registered Swiss media outlet. --94.163.167.149 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Setting apart from your COI, why didn't you link the homepage? Maybe because it states powered by the voices of thousands of people called Blasters? --Vituzzu (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uk.blastingnews.com is not a reliable source - note that "Mid Blasters can publish their own news, with no need of Senior Blaster approval"[1] and see Wikipedia's policy at WP:USERGENERATED and more crucially, this being a biography of a living person, WP:BLPSPS. It makes no difference whether or not Blasting Sagl is a registered company; the Wikimedia Foundation is registered too, but that doesn't make Wikipedia reliable. NebY (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same site is used in other articles, but this is the first time that someone has asked to remove the whole article. I removed the references instead.--5retf (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. The most substantial claims here seem to be that he received funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. Countless numbers of people and organisations receive grants, contracts or commissions from such bodies; it does not confer notability. NebY (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any issues with the sources: no evidence has been provided that they are unreliable or self-published. Also, the Library of Congress is very careful in selecting international authors, and would not order a book that is not written in English if it weren’t notable enough in its field.--5retf (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By my experience the higher is the number of SPAs (but also open proxies) involved the lower is notability, yours is the...fifth?

Also, LOC collects anything published in US furthermore the relevant source you provided is unavailable.

--Vituzzu (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? Would you please stop flaming me?--5retf (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming *where*? I'm simply pointing other users' attention at the massive use of single-purpose accounts related to this article. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not about academia because the primary job is not academic in nature, so WP:PROF doesn't apply here as per the guideline itself. --AuStar (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another SPA (even using Macario's linkedin as a source!)...btw well if WP:PROF doesn't apply you didn't mention any compliance with WP:GNG. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop bashing every person who you don't agree with?--AuStar (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An "ad hominem" answer to a true allegation. Even this morning you promoted Macario through wiki.--Vituzzu (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a book and some "records" suitable for trivia sections don't create notabily by accumulation (nor do the presence of SPA supporting it)--Shivanarayana (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Being the only Italian who holds records at the ACM ICPC, over an extended period of time, WP:WINNEROUTCOMES doesn’t conflict with WP:BASIC because the contest is not local or a one-time event. Besides, it looks like a couple of editors often deleted significant sources for no apparent reason—apart from some kind of personal dislike—in order to compromise the article. Lerdall (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another SPA: please stop this disrespectful try to fool us. Replying to your argument it definitely fails bot WINNEROUTCOMES and BASIC, by running a simple test: no other people had ever been considered to be notable because of ACM (which also lacks good sources related to this page). --Vituzzu (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WINNEROUTCOMES does not apply. The article's phrasing - "set two world records by solving problems of the ... contest" - is misleading. Macario has not competed at the ACM ICPC. On 15 September 2014 he - or someone using his name - submitted solutions to two problems, one from the 1993 finals and one from the 1997 Europe-Central regionals.[2] His submission for problem #5165, set in 1993, is listed as one of the five online submissions made by four site visitors about 20 years after the contest, and as having the lowest execution time of those submissions. His submission for problem #5535, set in 1997, is the only online submission. The ACM ICPC does not call these achievements, many years after the competitions, "records".

The claim that they are records is sourced to an article on uk.blastingnews.com dated 15 Sep 2014, the same day that those solutions were submitted. Not only is uk.blastingnews.com inherently not a reliable source, being WP:USERGENERATED as noted above, but it has clearly been used to create sources for this Wikipedia article. The blastingnews article is one of just three articles under the same username there, all of which feature Macario:[3]

Blastingnews article dated 15 Sep 2014,[4] used as a source for the Wikipedia article on 15 Sep 2014.[5]
Blastingnews article dated 5 Feb 2015,[6] used as a source for the Wikipedia article on 5 Feb 2015 with the edit comment "independent sources".[7]
Blastingnews article dated 28 March 2015,[8] used as a source for the Wikipedia article on 28 March 2015 with the edit comment "added source".[9]

We appear to have been subjected to a deliberate campaign of concocting sources to prop up a promotional article. NebY (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Macario has not competed at the ACM ICPC". Source?

"not a reliable source, being WP:USERGENERATED as noted above". That's not correct. The editors—not to be confused with "wiki editors" or similar concepts—are in charge of, fact-check, modify on a case by case basis, determine, the final content of an article… not the author the article. And the editor-in-chief is responsible for the content. This has nothing to do with the "user-generated content" you are referring to. As for citing a news source just after it appears on Google News, who said that it is prohibited? Lerdall (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usergenerated, same as Wikipedia itself. Timings are relevant because they underline those source also fall under SELFPUB. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've deleted the two obscure newspaper references (used 5+2 times) as unverified on probation, because their online archive yields nothing for the given dates. However, the references mumbled something about a special Sunday add-on, maybe it is supposed to be unavailable in their "time machine" feature. I've also removed the last surviving "blastingnews" source tagged as unreliable, because it's in fact rarely used on enwiki, most occurrences on wikispam watch pages. And I've added the missing ISBN, author, and date to his book. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Be..anyone: I've tried looking for book's publisher and it's always listed as "Libra" which is defunct since mid '80s, on most of shopping site I've found it as published by lulu.com (see here for instance), so I'd say even this one fails both WP:SELFPUB and WP:BASIC. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added. We're down to one reference confirming that a Reuters presence on 2nd Life closed six years ago, and an allegedly CC BY-SA on demand book for sale: Delete, empty "notable for" entry in BLP infobox. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete findings from NebY confirmed my worries about self-published sources and failing to comply with the GNG. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Doesn't meet WP:PROF, and even before it was cleaned up, there was no other claim to fame. Computer programmer, researcher, and author are all conventional titles, and being a "social entrepreneur" is so vague and buzzwordy it's basically meaningless unless it's contextualized by actual activity. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Following the "Authority control" tag link, I found another self registered reference. Statements are made about his records, but second and third party sources are missing and it is almost a year that the problem was raised. I made a suggestion to one of the editors friendly about Mr. Macario, but my suggestion was ignored and blanked. And beside it's the first time I see a talk page where messages from others are ... reverted (it happened to other editors). More troubling is how many self registered references are made and used by editors whomsoever they are. --Robertiki (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2015 (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.