Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vito Di Bari

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. Barring SPA and/or sockpuppets' arguments per policy, there is a consensus to delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Di Bari[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)

The article fails WP:GNG there is no “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent” of the topic. Scholarly publications are minimal and largely uncited no WP:PROF. Biancalu123 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biancalu123 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have referenced or withdrawn all the [citation needed] and clarified the [clarification needed] as per Biancalu123 request. Thanks Biancalu123 for advising, all the citations needed were 10-15 old links that have become dead in the meanwhile. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:AD18:2097:52B:583E (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:AD18:2097:52B:583E (talk)

Comment The article does not meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. First, the person doesn’t hold any prestigious appointment. He did not receive any Master or a Ph.D. The article claimed he was a Professor but I wasn’t able to find any evidence of his academic position. So I assumed he was an adjunct. My edit was corrected in contract professor by the same un-registered IP above. So, it is confirmed, he was a non-faculty and temporary staff in Italy a decade ago. Second, there are no scholarly publications. Just a few professional publications (published between 2000-2006) by a non-scholar Italian publisher. His work is not cited. Neither in Italian nor in English. The only information that I am able to verify is that he works as a keynote speaker. He is a “futurologist” and works with different agencies. Here is [one]. The tone, the register of the article and the unsigned comment above make me think this article is s a self-biography with promotional intent. Biancalu123 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only likely source of notability I see is WP:NAUTHOR. That would generally require multiple book reviews in independent reliable sources, which aren't currently in the article. Some reviews may also be published in Italian, which makes searching trickier. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* I agree with Russ Woodroofe that the source of notability is WP:NAUTHOR. I also agree with Biancalu123 that the article does not meet enough WP:NACADEMIC criteria, although the academic activity is verifiable through the Guides of the University itself, under [4] and [5]. There is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the article, it has a neutral point of view, it’s never self promotional, it's factual, there is verifiable evidence from suitable sources. I have checked and the contentious items pointed out by Biancalu123 have been all deleted or properly sourced. All this considered, I recommend to keep the page. I found remarkable the achievements at UNESCO and EXPO 2015. Innovamus (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)— Innovamus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. WP:TNT surely applies to this WP:PROMOTIONAL article, which appears from its edit history to be mostly autobiography. I also don't see notability: his books don't seem to have the reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and there are no other signs of it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment * Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have taken some time and sourced the article. I have also canceled what was unsourced including his entire section "Academic Carrier", just in case. And no, Biancalu123 I’m not him —I wish I was :) I’ve just seen one of his lectures, in Jacksonville, and liked him. You, on the other hand, honestly seem to just hold grudges, considering that 28 out of 31 of your total edits are aimed to compulsively chase him around wikipedia. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:7538:24F:1D0F:7EB8 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:TALKNO. Second, Russ Woodroofe wrote it "appears from its edit history to be mostly autobiography". Biancalu123

Comment WP:PROMOTIONAL remains. For instance “Di Bari is internationally regarded as a creative innovator”. Also, WP:NOTE as it is sourced with links to his own YouTube account Biancalu123
Comment You are right Biancalu123, that was a primary source, thank you for noticing. It was 1 out of 86 sources and it has been undisputed for 10 years, I didn't notice it, I've just canceled it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:847:C51B:5C9:3952 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets GNG. Also, since the proposal of deletion, a lot of reliable independent sources have been added. I’ve searched his name in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22vito+di+bari%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10 Although Google Scholar on occasion overcounts citations, I searched his publications one-by-one and found that they were cited 125 times, including citations from a paper in the Journal of Emerging Technology Kassel, Germany; ISTAT, the Italian National Institute of Statistics; Oxford University; Assiut University in Egypt; Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Venezuela; Queensland University of Technology; Boston’s Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies among others. Most citations are in books, others are in business publications and postgraduate theses. He is not an academic but his books 1999-2009 are published by IlSole24ORE Books, which is a prominent Italian business newspaper (the Italian equivalent of The Financial Times), and thereafter by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, the biggest publishing company in Italy according to Wikipedia. His work has been quoted by two Nobel Laureates for Economics: Kenneth Arrow and Lawrence Klein https://www.key4biz.it/Analisi-e-Dati-Bibliotech-2006-11-Il-futuro-che-gia-c-e-ma-ancora-non-lo-sappiamo/54547/ Keep. Leal48 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)— Leal48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment that Leal48's account was created about two hours after User:Vito Di Bari, and that their first edit was to blank the user page of the latter. @Leal48: do you have a COI to disclose? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe no they all have "seen one of his lectures, in Jacksonville, and liked him. " An admin blocked Innovamus WP:BADSOCK for abusing multiple accounts.Biancalu123 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Innovamus was blocked for 2 weeks for minor abuse. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No COI here, I was the one who deleted/revised the original page creation. I'm just doing the same now as I did then, trying to state the facts with valid sources and reasoning.Leal48 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To summarise: There is no WP:GNG. No multiple book reviews in independent reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. Sock puppets and anonymous IPs WP:SOCK. Conflict of interest WP:COI. Unverifiable references such as those from two Nobel laureates WP:NRV. Promotional language WP:SPIP.Biancalu123 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 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.