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. Singularity 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davide_Stefanini[edit]

Davide_Stefanini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There is no established notability, and the claims of being a leading expert are puffery. This should really have been a candidate for speedy deletion, but someone has deleted that (in the apparent belief that there is some claim to notability).Gregalton 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. The original speedy tag was spot-on. Not notable. Realkyhick 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of significant coverage of him Corpx 04:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From what I know and have been able to find, he is a leading expert in his field; the work of his agency is notable; but there is a lack of reliable sources to establish his personal notability to justify an article. –SESmith 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I wrote 'leading expert' - perhaps this is not sufficiently precise. Someone might be an expert, but 'leading' expert implies (to me) personal notability (i.e. substantially published and cited frequently as an expert in the field in relevant publications), as per SESmith. It was not intended as a comment on personal or professional qualifications, just notability. The text also says 'leading world expert,' which none of the refs appear to support.--Gregalton 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes, thanks. I think we are on the same page here. –SESmith 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the text of the article was a bit strong, so I am chaning some of the words as I know the subject matter. I think he is an expert within the field, and an expert within the United Nations, so I dont see why this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burton372 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only two edits, all of 5 September 2007. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally non-notable UN bureaucrat. Bigdaddy1981 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont delete. Bureaucrats are those who deal with papers, not those like him who manage projects in humanitarian and development action, benefitting thousands of people. If these UN figures are not notable, what is the benchmark or yardstick ? If you are a UN official and notable within the UN, I would say you are notable by this. Otherwise you should also delete the Chilean Ambassador to Paris or the Sudanese ambassador to Kenya... user:myth1727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1727 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only eight edits, all of 6 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats can benefit people too. Its quite ludicrous to liken this man to the Chilean Ambassador to France, by the way. Bigdaddy1981 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Why is it ludicrous ? The Chilean Ambassador to France may have done nothing more than attend receptions. This guy at least is notable in the country as someone who helped 200,000 people, and this is all referenced and sourced. And as a relatively senior UN official already, and very senior in the country, he is not less notable than a senior Chilean diplomat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edges273 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only six edits, all of 7 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372 and Myth1727. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many hundreds of senior project managers at the UN - this man is just one of them. The issue isn't whether he is a good person or whether his work helps people - both of those things may be true. The issue is whether he is notable - and I cannot see that he is. Bigdaddy1981 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. The subject of the article though apparently good at his job seems to be otherwise non-notable. --WebHamster 10:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is sufficient published material about him to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerh38 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only edits made on 7 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372, Myth1727 and Edges273. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Corpx and SESmith. --Edcolins 19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see references and links, I dont see why not notable. Perhaps because the country is small and remote ? Imagine he would be doing the same in Florida, would you say he is not notable ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan283 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only edits made on 7 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372 , Myth1727, Edges273 and Rogerh38. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he were doing the same thing in Florida he'd be even more anonymous and less notable as there would be more people doing the same thing.--WebHamster 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think Burton372, Myth1727, Edges273, Rogerh38, Alan283 are all sockpuppets. Can we block this practice somehow? --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Step287, Yolfvivd888, Casesvoice88, Roland988, Issh288, Rangeitem87, Hairsongs, Helpentry88, Porchthis22, Role281... --Edcolins 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Myth1727‎. --Edcolins 00:03, 9 September 2007 (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.