Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Augusto De Luca

The subject does not seem to be very notable.--Abramsky (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Augusto De Luca
According to Wikiquote ''We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work''.

On the contrary this article was created together with other articles on other Wikis and other projects such as Wikiquote as part of a global promotional campaign on Wikipedia. The promotion was existing on 557 different projects and, on some of them, it is under deletion or it is already deleted (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusto De Luca. Actually the notability of this man just rely on sources that are self-referenced, the poor notability can also judged by the quality of citations just self celebrating and nothing more.

So considering what Wikiquote is, which is not Facebook, I'm asking for deletion, I would add that otherwise anybody making interesting photos (as thousand people are posting daily on Flickr)  can create his page on wikiquotes with some photos and "pearls" of their wisdom on herself — Bramfab (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep — Again, quite FALSE and DISTORTED claims and assertions are being made to justify what I believe as began and HASTY and poorly thought out reactions to what should have been far more mildly treated as a breach of protocol or expectations. This person has worked with Italian and international celebrities in his career, and I certainly find some of the quotes of this noted artist notable enough to warrant attention. I also find it even more notable and worthy to promote dissent, against the pretentious, detrimental and destructive abuses of power and APPEARANCES of authority which have been exhibited in many of those campaigning to eliminate all they can of this person on the Wikimedia wikis, as swiftly as they could or as thoroughly as possible. This appears to me to be nothing less than an example of Groupthink censorship and exclusion of ANY or ALL ideas or considerations that some self-appointed groups of "protectors" of what they consider to be OTHERS integrity are prone to make, with little regard to the actual and fundamental rights of others to inform and be informed, honestly and even courageously, or of the very principles of fair freedoms which have founded wikis, in favor of the foul freedoms of those with sufficient force to suppress and oppress the proper rights of all, especially those not familiar with the distinctions ever to be made between fair freedoms of liberty, and the foul freedoms developed by those habituated into paths of ignorance, apathy and confusion and what powers to suppress and exclude they can they can attain, amidst what ignorance, apathy and confusion they promote or maintain. As a devotee of Liberty, I ever favor the fair freedoms of ANY and ALL to inform and to be informed, and to work on expositions without constraint, against the foul freedoms favored by some, to suppress and exclude information and constrain or exclude the expositions of others, and to even punish or eliminate the voices and presence of those most earnest in their efforts to indicate, celebrate, and defend the proper freedoms of all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)+ tweak
 * The notability of celebrities is not inherited by their photographers any more than their hairdressers. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The notability of opinions of admins in dictating what the notability of any other persons IS or should be is no more notable than any other would be dictators of what others notability should be, in ANY other positions of power or authority, from those at widely dangerous national levels to the most petty children's club of 3 or 4 kids emerging from the infancy of their desires to please and be pleased into imitation of more "adult" forms of fascism, eager to make rules that, in all their clearly "advanced maturity" over anyone who might stand opposed to them, they believe are sensible enough that they should swiftly or gradually become absolute mandates for anyone. I believe that people of genuine ethical maturity can competently and vigorously reject such notions by the time they are 5 or 6 years of age, while, unfortunatlely, they persist into adulthood in far too many people. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whether or not this content is part of a promotional campaign, the subject of the article is not sufficiently notable and the content of the article is not sufficiently quotable. See my remarks about these two issues on the article talk page at Talk:Augusto De Luca, where the user who posed the argument has conceded, upon reviewing Wikiquote policy, that this page is inappropriate on the en.wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The user just mentioned has at various times made numerous concessions I believe are overly charitable to the most restrictive and constraining interpretations of rules and aims that have been proposed by various people hostile to more options or liberties than they themselves are inclined to use. I certainly do not agree with these, and believe that the growth of constraints on options of editors here should and must be fought, and with increasing vigor — but in accord with this recognize EACH person must make their own decisions, on any matters that confront them. I personally find the statements and the person sufficiently notable, and arguments for deletion rather specious. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Deletion of the Wikipedia article seems to have hinged more on the unsavory nature of the promotional campaign than on a deep dive into the possible notability of the subject. The subject has, in fact, been quoted in reliable secondary sources, so it's not all puffery, and I (subjectively) like some of the quotes. Lastly, several other language Wikiquote projects have pages on this subject which are not currently being considered for deletion, and it is a personal goal of mine to expand, not contract, our inclusion of pages found in other language Wikiquote projects. BD2412 T 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which sources are those? I would be happy to change my vote if this can be demonstrated. My investigation of citations here and in articles formerly at the English and Italian Wikipedias left me with the impression that they were networking sites, user contribution sites, very small-time operations of a generally promotional nature, and a self publishing print shop, though I was not able to track all of them down. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources has been careful revised in Italian Wikipedia, before to close the deletion page process, but no reliable sources has been found.--Bramfab (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the Ziguline pieces. I admit, I know nothing about this source, but it certainly has the look and feel of a source independent of this subject. If this is a phony put-up operation or merely a scraper/compiler of internet material (as some otherwise good-looking sites are) then I would change my vote to delete. BD2412 T 15:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether Ziguline is a moderated user contribution site or just a very independent (i.e. obscure) 'zine. It looks like a sophisticated community, but I am not sure I would consider it a reliable source for attesting notability, particularly since its primary focus is "new and emerging" artists. Wikipedia does not have an article on this webzine, nor any citations naming it, even in the Italian edition. (The latter does have one (1) external link to a Ziguline article). ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am inclined to keep this page, but my problem is that listed sources are in Italian (and thus I cannot verify to my satisfaction that the quotes are genuine). To my mind, the question of notability is not an issue - that is, I do believe this person is notable enough for a page. So if perhaps better sources (or at least some with English translations) were provided, I would vote to keep this page. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete : There seem to be no prove, that his quotes have had any impact on English/American literature. -- Mdd (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)