Talk:Salvatore Aranzulla

Contesting the deletion request

He’s the most famous blogger in Italy, his site is one of the most visited and many people say “Hai cercato su Aranzulla?” o “L’hai letto su Aranzulla” like a famous meme.--Ferdi2005 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ferdi2005 since you are the only person who commented in the talk page, please evaluate also the other tag on the article. Do you think it's written like a resumé?--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have also removed the tag today after a second deletion request. I don't understand why the Italian public has such as strong stance against him, he is notable and described in the sources. Keeping such excessive tag will only encourage deletion proposals, we need to encourage constructive criticism.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the page is ok, improvable but ok.--Ferdi2005 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

According to WP:Verifiability, “Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [...] The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.”

For the aforementioned reasons, the following statements are provided with sources that do not meet one or more of the “reliable, independent” criteria:

“He is considered the most important expert on on-line problem solving for informatics and software by the general Italian public”

This is an extremely bold claim which would require an adequate source. Not only the cited book is of questionable reliability w.r.t. the fact-checking part, but also it does not even mention the words "most important expert". The whole part is written in a tongue-in-cheek way, containing brilliant insights such as:

“Beyond approximate or malicious solutions that will make you install billions of toolbars if followed to the letter, his very basic tutorials will not be a masterpiece of computer science dissemination, but solve the problems of poor assholes. And the poor assholes are the majority. [...] And so, having clarified the fact that Aranzulla, the IT divulger, is less bad than many others, Aranzulla, the character, still continues to make people piss from laughing. [...] Lately, for example, he continues to post selfie in his bare chest on his Facebook page, which could create a bit of perplexity to anyone who has seen his face.”

“When he was 12, he read through the net and discovered some flaws in sites like Google, Microsoft and Poste Italiane”

This was already debunked during the 2016 deletion from the Italian Wikipedia. The cited source indeed contains such sentences... which are a slightly-edited copy-pasta of different revisions of Salvatore Aranzulla's own website. This does not constitute an independent source. Moreover, the section in the cited book is a very short bio, among those of various people which were interviewed and mentioned in the section Those who spoke with us: the bios where either provided by the subjects themselves or copied from their websites.

These sources are not valid and shall be removed. Consequently, the unsupported statements shall be removed as well.

Please note that, without the presence of these unsubstiated claims, it is quite questionable whether the article is still relevant and a new deletion proposal should be deemed appropriate.

--TheLazza (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Do as you want, I do not recall all the passages from other versions and sources and changes of this article and I have another things to do right now. BTW he is notable by enwiki standard, the very same fuzz about deletion performed on itwiki proves it (and it was even before, itwikipedia exaggereated with its reactions, but whatever, don't follow deletion procedures closely there since a while). Also you add a sentence about "close siblings" that sounds strange on that point. it could be an expression I don't know but it makes you think about brothers and sisters. Bye.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

it's here in this source the most influential and know popularizer of informatics in Italy, right?. Daniele Chieffi is a competent author, if he thinks that is correct he uses it. If you want you can find another competent author who disagrees, but that would be difficult because he is known. We all know it is. Besides every comment you can do and make fun of him, he had that role for years. It takes you five minute to fix it if you search these sources again for the first time and I am sorry but it is not debunked, he is accepted by a competent guy in the field. Whatever, let's spend God knows how many more minutes to act like a prosecutor of a trial. What this guy ever made to you? That's funny. Shall I change something or is this going to be a tense or supercritical discussion and not a cooperative one? because if that's the case, let me know, I do nothing and you can delete... go on --Alexmar983 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

national newspaper. celebre divulgatore informatico più celebre in Italia . Deceber 2018.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Forbes says he is diventato punto di riferimento per coloro che, vecchi e giovani, hanno qualsiasi perplessità di tipo informatico. There is more stuff I could remember. It's also true that you have less time to improve an article when most of the time you keep receiving odd tags from italian IPs or users (not talking about you). So what do you prefer. Should I add them? or I give up before trying?--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

“you add a sentence about "close siblings" that sounds strange” — Good point. I should change the word to "acquaintances".

“it's here in this source“ — That source is a direct "paste" from his own website. But, focusing on the sentence you quote, it says "influential and known popularizer" which seems more reasonable. Nothing about "the most important expert".

“Besides every comment you can do and make fun of him” — To clarify: the paragraph above that might be seen as making fun of him is a quote that I translated from one of the cited books. I did not write it myself. The point here is not to have fun, it is to evaluate the sources.

“I am sorry but it is not debunked” — That specific source there is debunked as being copy-pasted. We should focus on other sources for the time being.

In any case, you provided some links describing him as well-known or "famous", which seems to suit much better than "considered the most important expert". Also considering the source which is now in the article, I am going to chage the phrasing there.

Still, it seems that we are not able to find any source that corroborates the fact he hacked into Google, Microsoft or Poste Italiane. If this is really verified apart from his claims, I will probably change my mind and suggest to keep the article. --TheLazza (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Look I found other ones right now. a national newpaper calling him Maestro Manzi, than "il guru" on a video from Il Sole 24 ore il più famoso divulgatore informatico d'Italia in the description, than a a national radio where Linus define it more famous than Emily Ratajkowski to the audience. look at all these descriptions over the year, by different sources and what do you get? But again here is the point. I changed the article over the months and it was not easy to edit with all these it-N pseudo-trolls so I gave up, but it is not really a big deal, his notabilty and the reason is quite clear. You could do it, for example and it does not look so difficult to me. So I ask you again, your choice Shall I change something? .--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Camelia.boban since you are editing the page, would you like to use also the other sources in this talk page? Some of them are better for the discussion page of the deletion, but other ones are fine for the page.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm leaving for Stockholm, so I don't have the time to find other things that are easily researchable on the web. I just reformulated some sentences and add a resource. --Camelia (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. BTW, a section is still mising "publication" with his books. they are "perishable" but I think there are even some reviews here and there. Crtainly, some of them are from major publishers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@TheLazza rosicone 82.132.185.71 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

About the issue of the flaws discovered in some websites or company platforms, there is also an academic source here nel 2004 scopre addirittura delle falle nei sistemi informatici. it's generic, but there is probably something true there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

More traces here and here. On Punto Informatico in 2005. I tried to explain that if a reliable author o a book of a reliable publisher uses something similar to the official website it does not mean it's not reliable, but he is simply putting his face on that specific information. I di not care specifically about this detail, but now we have in theory the possibility to reinsert this aspect maybe in more generic way, Aranzulla discovered some bugs when he was young.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

If wikipedia is keeping this page, I think that everyone should have his/her CV published here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Everybody with so many sources, probably should have an article here on Wikipedia, it's called notability. however no CV should be published, and this is not a CV.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)