Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvio Pollio

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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BLP vio attack piece written in such a way as only to disparage subject, "oh and by the way he's an actor too". Needs to be blanked and written from the ground up. Subject is not notable for his criminal record, else we'd have millions more articles. This type of article is bad for Wikipedia. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agreed, the article is unbalanced. However, the negative statements are supported by reliable sources. Feel free to rewrite the article in a more neutral way. This forum is called 'Articles for deletion'. Do you want to delete the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, else I wouldn't have brought it here. Do you think I am stupid? That's been your angle since you first began to vex me yesterday.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since by your own admission your English is sketchy, I'm going to assume you missed the part about "Needs to be blanked and written from the ground up."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are stupid. I don't know who you are and I don't care who you are. I'm judging the encyclopedic potential and value of an article here on Wikipedia, not your intelligence. I found two referenced articles tagged as {{db-attack}} without further explanation. I removed the tag at this article and I left there the edit summary: rmv the {{db-attack}} tag, the article is referenced by reliable sources. My comment at the other article was similar. The discussion continues here. No problem. I'm really really sorry if you feel vexed or if you think my action was hostile against you. It is perhaps caused by different cultural background, it didn't come to my mind how offensive my comments could be. Please, accept my deepest apologies and let me know if you feel this is insufficient - I'll do anything to alleviate this embarrassing situation. I hope my response is comprehensible. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can blank the article and start a new and more balanced version. Do you want to delete the article together with its history? Is there any false information? In my opinion, the article is simply unbalanced. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think Silvio Pollio meets our notability guideline for film personalities, as his works were noted and reviewed by multiple and independent reliable media. The article contains plenty of independent sources (unfortunately the refs cover the controversies associated with this filmmaker rather than his film career). I found several articles focusing solely on his film career, see for example Canadian Society of Cinematographers, Los Angeles Times, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Courier. The article has potential for expansion, it needs a competent and neutral editor, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The films don't appear to meet WP:NF criteria (coverage, major award, etc) so he himself is not notable (the criminal charges standing alone don't seem to meet the criteria either). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The present article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for the criminal charges, but they are not notable; and as a film-maker he has had two films screened at festivals, one of which won a prize - that seems to me well short of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yes as per John and Jonathon, the criminal charges are now the focus of the article and they are not noteworthy, a couple of local reports of what turned out to be not notable productions won't change that.Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... BUT, and with respects to the points of both User:Vejvančický and nominator User:Kintetsubuffalo, without prejudice toward re-creation of a properly balanced article. As has been noted, there is no flaw with this one's sourcing, only its tone and focus. The actor has a decent enough career to push at WP:ENT [1] and enough coverage for his career away from the courts to be pushing nicely at WP:GNG. [2] [3] [4] Heck, I'd even be willing to do the rewrite myself, later in the week... just don't speedy my newer version, as I can assure you it will not be a G4 recreation, and will be set to pass an AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: http://www.superchannel.ca/movies/view/45589224/Guido-Superstar%3A-The-Rise-of-Guido/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.184.117 (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As posted above, film playing on major national cable network. Additionally, meets notability by multiple film festivals, major news outlet coverage in Canada for both films and Criminal activity. Attack piece? Not at all. Read the talk page.
  • Balance: The criminal issues were added and referenced in detail to add balance. Look at the original piece created by Silvio and Jose.
  • Page has been subject to significant section blanking by multiple users, without references or explanation for edits. See: Jose Carlton and Mrsilvio
  • Notability: Note, these are referenced and verifiable biographical information from reputable Canadian newpapers and national entertainment media that is being deleted. Meets WP: WELL KNOWN, and the criminality is relevant to the subject of his filmmaking.
  • "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
  • Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source."
  • The subject is an actor, film producer, and director. As such qualifies as a "public figure", and for the less than savory info to be included without it being considered an attack.
  • The often vandalized and properly cited references to criminal charges and court decisions against Silvio Pollio should remain and be left unaltered as they are relevant to the article, while also meeting BLP Public Figure guidelines as outlined above, as well as WP verifiability guidelines, and NOTABILITY IMHO. Bluebadger1 05:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebadger1 (talk • contribs)

• Note: The above two comments were reformatted for clarity and consistency with the remainder of the AfD. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2011 (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.