Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filippo Maria Bressan

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. Weird shenanigans aside, I don't really see a policy-based "delete" argument here, except for a somewhat broad claim about GNG, which isn't substantiated. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures", which is clearly not the case with this person who has been repeatedly covered as a performing artist.  Sandstein  20:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Maria Bressan

[edit]
Filippo Maria Bressan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination based on off-wiki communication requesting deletion of the page on WP:GNG grounds as well as WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Concern is that subject is not notable and is receiving undue attention due to the Wikipedia page. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no issue with this request, I support deletion. As a general note for prosperity, I would support the recreation of this article after the subjects death given the worldcat data coupled with the inevitable obituary would give a good claim to notability. Dysklyver 13:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have several clear issues with this request and do not think we should honor it. Dysklyver 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    • There is a more substantial version available for translation from the Italian Wikipedia, it:Filippo Maria Bressan, that has ten references.
    • Filippo Maria Bressan over a dozen citations in Google Scholar
    • There are plenty of citations available at Google
    • Did anyone check the Authority Control at the bottom of the page? That's usually a pretty good indicator of notability.
    • Just because an article is a stub does not mean it should be deleted. Impatience with the lack of citations establishing notability does not equate with being not notable.
This article just needs work & citations, not deletion.
Peaceray (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+"Filippo Maria Bressan" - Google Books Search Peaceray (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then support. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to discuss this as a request from the subject of the article, then the primary discussion should be at the Italian Wikipedia since that is the most substantial of the three articles & that the editors there would be likely more familiar with an Italian composer. Personally, I am an opponent of the right to be forgotten, & I think that it is inapplicable to notable people. With Google Books listing about "About 3,500 results" in "Filippo Maria Bressan" - Google Books Search, he is clearly notable & not liking the fact that there's an article in Wikipedia is not justification for taking it down. Otherwise, we might have Donald Trump requesting Wikipedia to delete anything mentioning him ... Peaceray (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a fair comparison, if Trump wanted to remove himself from wikipedia, he need only sign an executive order to achieve it. Wikipedia's policy has always been that private individuals who are low profile can legitimately request their articles to be removed. Yes this person is clearly a good composer, no that does not make high profile, and no that doesn't make him so notable in the public eye that we can't honor his request. Dysklyver 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The implication that an it-OTRS agent can, let alone will, speedy-delete a ticket simply because someone asks is laughable. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: The Italian Wikipedia is the eighth largest Wikipeida; please refrain from calling it "some forgotten backwater". After seeing how well the Italian Wikimedia chapter did putting on Wikimania 2016 & their conduct within the movement, I think that is an insult & would ask you to remove your comment.
Just because we write in English & edit the largest language Wikipedia, does not give us authority over other language Wikipedias.
The Italian Wikipedia should get first crack at deciding this because
  • It is the eighth largest Wikipedia.
  • It has the most complete & well cited article on Mr. Bressan.
  • Itailian Wikipedians are much more likely to be familiar with the Italian conductor & therefore will be more authoritative in this debate.
20:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Using a standard activity model, it-wiki has 2233 active editors and en-wiki has 132,425. However, this discussion is about our article here on en-wiki, the Italians don't have to follow our lead, and we don't have to follow theirs. Dysklyver 20:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation There are two editors for Filippo Maria Bressan articles who tended to be reverted on most of their edits. One was an IP editor on IT, EN, & DE, 2.224.243.55 whose ISP is in Bologna & Jeanfil (@Jeanfil:) in IT &EN, who pretty much only editted Filippo Maria Bressan & Talk:Filippo Maria Bressan, except for the entry at User talk:Jeanfil in which the editor stated I'm Filippo Maria Bressan and don't want to be here on Wipipedia anymore, both in Italian as well as in English and German. Thank you and good bye. If that editor & the subject of the article are indeed the same, then there was no conflict of interest declared heretofore, & that could imply that this person wants the articles deleted because the COI edits didn't stick. If that is the case, then I am definitely opposed in principle. Are we going to reward every COI subject/editor who then decides they don't like their article because of the edits by taking that article down upon their request? Peaceray (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the situation then I am also opposed as a matter of principle. We are not here to delete articles created for malicious purpose by the subject which have been made good. Dysklyver 22:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public figure, and there is nothing libelous or unfair about the article, and no negative blp concerns. The subject of an article does get get to dictate the contents. Any compromise with letting them do so is in complete opposition to NPOV. The itWP is entitled to its own rules--I do not know if in this respect they are stricter or more permissive, but we go by ours. The appropriate off-wiki response to requests of this sort, is that unless there is a some special reason, we do not do this. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vi scrivo in italiano perché per me è più facile esporre la questione. La voce in inglese, tedesco e in italiano non ha a che fare con l'OTRS precedente perché notevolmente migliorata e modificata. Dell'originale presente nel sito ufficiale di Bressan c'è un testo ormai completamente diverso. Il problema è un altro: il suddetto direttore d'orchestra ha più volte vandalizzato le pagine con utenti anonimi o ha chiamato addirittura altri per rimuovere alcune informazioni che non vuole (data di nascita e insegnamento al conservatorio). Purtroppo queste informazioni sono libere sul web e quindi non violano la privacy. Insomma, si tratta di un capriccio abbastanza surreale di Bressan, se le voci venissero cancellate sarebbe assurdo. Bressan dovrebbe capire che Wikipedia non è una vetrina autopromozionale, gli è stato detto più volte ma non capisce (ha un carattere narcisista che lo porta a dettare legge dove non può). Per me la voce è quindi da mantenere assolutamenteDriante70 (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I write to you in Italian because it is easier for me to expose the matter. English, German, and Italian have nothing to do with the previous OTRS because they have been greatly improved and modified. The original on the official website of Bressan is now completely different. The problem is another: the aforementioned orchestra director has repeatedly vandalized the pages with anonymous users or even called others to remove some information they do not want (birth date and teaching at the conservatory). Unfortunately, this information is free on the web and therefore does not violate privacy. In short, this is a pretty surreal whim of Bressan, if voices are erased it would be absurd. Bressan should understand that Wikipedia is not a self-promotional showcase, he has been told several times but he does not understand (he has a narcissistic character that leads him to dictate where he can not). For me the voice is therefore to be kept absolutely
The above is a machine translation from Italian to English via Google Translate. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some pretty harsh words. Granted, the OTRS ticket is largely the same, accusing Driante70 of stalking and bending the truth. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to maintain an encyclopedia, not bend to the will of people who have tried and failed to use Wikipedia for promotion. I have changed my !vote in light of this. Dysklyver 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ora sono accusato pure di stalking, ma avete letto per caso la pagina di discussione di Jeanphil su Wikipedia italiana? Per questo motivo è stato più volte bloccato per atti vandalici. E ora gli altri gli fanno stalking? Non scherziamo, siamo seri... questa storia va avanti da mesi ahimè, è tutto surreale in quanto Bressan vuole che la sua voce rimanga esclusivamente con le parole promozionali tratte dal suo sito, quando ha visto che la voce italiana è stata scremata di tutte le pubblicità (ovvero che fa triathlon e altra fuffa), si è ribellato e non è la prima volta che lo fa sia in rete che di persona (conoscendolo in tutti i due casi)Driante70 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Machine translation) I am now also accused of stalking, but have you read the Jeanphil discussion page on Italian Wikipedia? For this reason it has been blocked several times for vandalism. And now are the others stalking him? Let's not joke, we're serious ... this story goes on for months now, alas, it's all surreal since Bressan wants his voice to stay exclusively with the promotional words from his site when he saw that the Italian voice was skimmed of all advertising (that is, triathlon and other fake) has rebelled and is not the first time it does it online or in person (knowing it in both cases) Primefac (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry but something escapes me: how do you accuse jeanfil of wanting his voice in Wikipedia "to remain exclusively with the promotional words taken from his site", when he asks clearly that the page that concerns him personally is deleted? Strange form of promotion, the cancellation...
The only promotion I see is that one of the conservatory where he teaches, which is indirect advertising.
Even though it may seem strange to most of you, I believe that we must respect the will of a person not to appear on Wikipedia.
Personally don't understand this Taleban doggedness of those who oppose it: there is suspicion that there are motivations
that go beyond mere compliance with the Wikipedia rules.
As far as I am concerned with jeanfil's request.--Musicforawhile (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Potremmo dire la stessa cosa sul suo conto, visto che si è iscritto apposta per controbattere... Lo sa quante volte Jeanfil ha reputato stalker altri utenti senza una motivazione valida, anzi con maleducazione ha pure vandalizzato la sua pagina più volte (tutto questo è verificabile dalla cronologia italiana, non sono illazioni). Non mi stupirei che lei sia un utenza multipla di Jeanfil (su Wikipedia Jeanfil ha creato numerose multiple per vandalizzare le voci Jeanphilip, Filippo Bressan) Driante70 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in case it is unclear the policy is not to remove articles unless there is a good policy reason to do so. And there is none noted here. Dysklyver 18:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to this situation. This policy does not discuss the concept of the right to be forgotten, because the criteria of notability required for article creation makes the concept moot. The subject of the article is already notable, therefore the right to be forgotten is impossible, & IMHO unethical, to enforce in those situations.
In this situation, I do ask fellow editors to be aware of & to adhere to WP:BLPKINDNESS while at the same time holding true to the pillars, policies, & guidelines of Wikipedia in general & as each language Wikipeda recommends.
Peaceray (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repeated mentions of the right to be forgotten are not helping. Wikipedia is not affected by such matters. Wikimedia is a US foundation. The ruling and the battle in the EU involving google and the ECJ is not relevant, and not mentioned in policy for obvious reasons, even if the subject was not notable it would not apply. Additionally the translation seems off, "...of wanting his voice in Wikipedia" many references to 'voice', but it is unclear if this is supposed to be 'opinion' or 'article' and it makes a big difference to the meaning of what our esteemed Italian comrades are saying. Dysklyver 20:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signor User:Musicforawhile come reputa questi atti di vandalismo e di accusa infondate dell'utente Jeanfil il 27 agosto 2017, il 30 settembre 2017, il 7 ottobre 2017? Si possono leggere sulla sua pagina di discussione italiana https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Jeanfil La voce andava bene fino a quando c'era quella promozionale dell'OTRS. Appena è stata aggiunta la sua data di nascita e informazioni che evidentemente non erano gradite (ma che sono rintracciabili in rete e quindi non c'è violazione di privacy), sono incominciati i guai, all'improvviso la voce non poteva più stare su Wikipedia. Ma se uno non vuole esserci che chiede a fare l'OTRS da http://www.studiomusica.net/? Non so se avete letto il "curriculum" ovvero com'era prima la voce (si parlava di triathlon, sport e hobby, di lodi di ogni sorta... tutte informazioni queste davvero per niente enciclopediche e o private, ma che invece andavano bene per il signor Bressan). Ci sono molte incongruenze. Il soggetto è ampiamente enciclopedico. Il fatto che lavori in conservatorio è un dato pubblico e non promozionale (come appare nell'elenco del Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione Italiana in nota n. 1), semmai lo sono i concerti extra con fondazioni private (e, stranamente, queste vanno bene?). Driante70 (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Google Machine translation) Mr. User: Musicforawhile how does this Jeanfil filed for vandalism and unfounded charges on August 27, 2017, September 30, 2017, October 7, 2017? You can read it on its Italian discussion page https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Jeanfil The voice was fine until there was the promotional one of the OTRS. Just added her birth date and information that was obviously not welcome (but that can be traced on the net and so there is no privacy breach), troubles began, suddenly the voice could no longer stay on Wikipedia . But if one does not want to be asking for the OTRS from http://www.studiomusica.net/? I do not know if you have read the "curriculum" or what was the first rumor (it was about triathlon, sports and hobbies, praise of all sorts ... all this really for no encyclopaedia or private, but that they were good for Mr Bressan). There are many inconsistencies. The subject is largely encyclopaedic. The fact that conservatories work is a public and non-promotional issue (as appears in the list of the Italian Ministry of Education in note 1), whether it is extra concerts with private foundations (and, oddly, are these good? ). Driante70 (talk) 8:53 am, Today (UTC-5)
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/Filippo_Maria_Bressan&oldid=1077969069"