User talk:G.-M. Cupertino

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino

The "G.-M. Cupertino" arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available at the link above.

G.-M. Cupertino is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should he return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for immediate return to previous ways. You were banned for chronic edit warring and insulting edit summaries. A quick review of your edits since your return indicate that you learned nothing from your ban. I will lift this block if you agree to a 0RR restriction: no reversions of any editor's edits at any time, including edits that you consider to be vandalism. Any other admin can lift this block without consulting me once he complies with this.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I see you are evading your block by editing as an IP: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.106.245.218. This is an abuse of the blocking policy (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks. DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply a lie. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.-M. Cupertino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've quit wikipedia for almost three years. However, and for my surprise, other people, some of whom I know, who decided to make edits here where I am, at the Portuguese Archives, got themselves blocked for the simple reason that I've also used the same computers. According to some, whenever an IP was blocked the Administrators asked the users to create an account to avoid it. And when they did, they got blocked for the very same reason... I don't want to keep up with something so lowsy as wikipedia. However, I don't want to create any obstacles to anyone else who does. So I request my unblock simply to avoid all this mess. Despite this, however, and for the principle, I find, specially after almost three years, that asking me not to reverse any edits even if I consider them vandalism to be an exageration. I understand that edit warrings are unproductive and excessively penalized and that what we should do is try to find a User or an Administrator that, unlike others, knows anything about the matter in question. I don't know if we can negociate new terms, but I'm open to it. The "insulting" complaints are just lame, though. A few accurate accusations and words cannot be insults, specially when some edits and Users are way more insulting with their manners and ignorance than the ones who answer back. But if I came back I would try to curb it, and if I persisted I could allways be blocked again for reasonable time this turn; the point is, no one else has to be deprived from editing because of me. In these terms, I request my unblocking. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

From the comments here and especially below, it's clear that unblocking this user would not be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Autoblocks have long since expired, so the only way IP editors should have problems with being called your socks would be if you, yourself, are still editing from the same range. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Specially from below? Defending myself is worse than the rest? What I should not do is respond to provocations, like the one he did on purpose to make partial people like you to deny my request. What did I do wrong? Just because I find lame the obsession with politeness it doesn't mean I'll continue with my way back former behaviour, but you didn't understand that, or you didn't want to. What should I do to get unblocked around here? Yes, they edited from the same range because this is a public range!... What could I have done? How can my unblocking be a benefit, then, if it's so "clear" to you? It is clear to me that people here are just protecting eachother against old offenders who no longer do anything wrong just because they once did. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a liar in the same breath as asking for an unblock is unlikely to win you converts. DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a lie. Because it's not true. You're accusing someone of something they didn't do and without evidence and then you call what they do vandalism? Defending myself is vandalism?... No wonder people keep getting blocked around here. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people around here do what they want and make accusations, and if people, who didn't do anything as bad as that, defend themselves they're criminals. Seems like you're only targeting people because of old beefs. That only shows your character. That's the only thing you have to say as an answer. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing this for myself. I don't know if you treat people like you do when you're not hidden behind a computer, but that matters little to me. I'm done with you people, I just want to end this. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One word of advice: you can't threaten and scare people away from telling the truth. Hope we never meet. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.-M. Cupertino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will not continue with my previous behaviour. For the simple reason I will not return here anymore. Even if I did, I wouldn't continue with that behaviour. If that's not enough for you, what is? What's not acceptable is that people get punished for denying a false accusation against them and call it a personal attack. Whatever you want me to do, I will do it. I can't do more. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As your unblock request states that you do not intend to edit Wikipedia, there is no need to unblock. The only person in the world being affected by that is you - nobody else. Indeed, it only affects editing and not reading, so the net effect is positive for all. If at some point you wish to edit again, re-read WP:GAB and try again. Until that point, please do not waste people's time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You clearly did not read my explanation, which you should, since you're the responsible for unblockings. I'm requesting my unblocking because the IP of the place I used to edit from is being systematically blocked because of me having used it before, over three years ago... It was told to one of the editors that if I were unblocked they would be too. So I requested my unblocking. So they can get unblocked. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.-M. Cupertino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm fed up with petty arguments and edit wars, so I won't cause any more fuss again. It's so much simpler to me to just ignore provocations that to feed the trolls. I should've done it before and I'd avoid being asking to be unblocked once more now. It would have been so easy!... Fighting all the time leads nowhere. I don't want other people to be blocked simply because they used the same computer I did. I shall search for someone else if in trouble, and perhaps getting a tutor or whatever is called in here, perhaps EyeSerene. I can't give anything else but my word, which you might not take. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Doesn't really offer a reason to unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.-M. Cupertino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What reason should I offer? I've renounced my previous behaviour, what else am I supposed to do? If accepting to behave and follow the rules isn't enough, then what is? Perhaps a less biased Administrator should review this.

Decline reason:

I agree with Daniel Case above. And considering what your previous blocks are for, I don't think accusing an administrator of being biased is a proper route. only (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My accusations of bias were only because I've rejected my previous actions, and keep blocking someone in those circumstances at least seems biased. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to either be unclear in how blocking works, or in how to make a clear statement of intent.

If another editor who is entirely unrelated to you is having trouble editing because of a blocked IP address, then that user may make an appropriate unblock request. It's difficult to fathom how you would personally know that someone else cannot login because of your block. We will not unblock you so that someone else can edit - the process and technology behind the block does not work that way.

However, you seem to be also arguing that YOU should be unblocked on your own recognizance - but you're not providing anything remotely WP:GAB-compliant, and thus the continual decline.

So ... which is it? Are you personally trying to be unblocked, or are you trying to help someone else edit? D P 12:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do both. I know someone else was blocked because of the complaints I sometimes have here at the National Archives from people that had this problem and that just want to work. In any case, please, help me: how should I formulate a successful unblock request? How should I convince an Administrator? With which words exactly? Please, as I also stated, I also want EyeSerene as a tutor. Thank you. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You tried the tactic of saying you are merely sharing an IP address before at User talk:Nan Boleyn, User talk:Konakonian and User talk:Mamikonian. It won't work. Your last identified sock puppet, User:HRO'Neill, was blocked a week ago, and your last sock puppet IP, 93.108.251.207, was blocked yesterday. The likelihood of two different unrelated editors using the same IP and showing an interest in the same obscure figures (note the history of Hugo Ricciardi O'Neill) is so extremely remote as to be negligible. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Melissa Marsala for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melissa Marsala is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Marsala until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. St Anselm (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Garrett Swann

The article Garrett Swann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, and no references besides an external link to IMBd.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marquardtika (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jennifer Dorogi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer Dorogi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Dorogi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Makro (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Interstellarity (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Leslie Stefanson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leslie Stefanson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Stefanson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Please, if you ever read this and are still coming to your page sometimes, I beg you that you ask for your unblocking again, accepting all the conditions they demand. I'm tired of being constantly blocked and reverted from my work that is important, among other people, one at least I don't even know and others that help me for once and a while. Please, we don't deserve to be punished for your mistakes! I hope you take me into consideration, since you don't seem to do it with other people, but do that too! If they insist I'm you, please, "confess" that you are. And, if I can't use IPs because you can use simply your original User Name, please restore yourself the reversions you have caused! Thank you. 88.157.145.50 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.-M. Cupertino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to start for appologizing for my distant past behaviour. The truth is that I was suffering from anxiety which later became also a full blown depression. But I am not here to excuse with it. I have caused too much havoc, specially for small edits that did not justify it and are not allowed in any case, reverting small things and insulting for small things. I am deeply sorry for it. If I knew these were the consequences I would have never done it. I did not even know about Sockpuppetry back then. For the sake of not causing any more trouble I will assume as mine all the edits that have been attributed to me, even the ones which are not mine. I will also not provoke nor reply to provocations any longer. According to the unblocking instructions, if I assume and do not deny my mistakes, an Administrator can be lenient. I am way better now and I vow not to make more personal attacks nor harass anyone. My blocking was more due not to the edit warring per se but for my needless and counterproductive insults. I am not the same person that I was before. I do not wish to ruin the project for myself and everyone else because of what was my old doing. It is more important than my temper. I know now people who work around on this project are deserving of a greater consideration than the one I was giving. I take this more seriously now. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your extensive violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE, you are all but certainly considered banned by the community under WP:3X. That means no admin is free to consider lifting your block. Instead, you must convince the community. WP:UNBAN explains how to do this. You'll need a substantially more convincing explanation for your bad behaviour which extended back as recently as November, 2019. Yamla (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.-M. Cupertino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since the decision belongs now to the Community and not to individual Administrators, I present the previous argumentation to the Community and add that, regardless of having assumed any edit attributed to me until November 2019, even the ones who had little importance in content and no personal attacks whatsoever, and, to make my word my credible, I promise, with the risk of being blamed for making one or another edit, there will not any more edits that can be attributed to me for a given period of time to be defined, even if I do not see any reason for the most recent edits to be attributed to me. Therefore, I ask for this request to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. There will not be any more personal attacks issues and I will not create any other account. In fact, I also ask to be able to be able to use my user page, the one where I should be making any appeals rather than this one, the User talk page, and, at the same time, to merge all the accounts attributed to me with my main account. I wish to solve this problem for good. I submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an Administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and, in order not to use it in excess, I ask for the guidance of the Administrator in order to present it the most proper and least excessive way possible if it is not accepted the first time. About my banning, I believe I should explain to the Arbitration Committee that blocked me that, despite being right in the initial blocking, I was unable to defend myself that time because I've made an edit and only after that I've read that I would be blocked if I did another edit and, since I was blocked, I wasn't able to reply to the Arbitration Commitee. It was not in bad faith that I didn't reply or defend myself, but because of that. I have no grounds to appeal for past mistakes, the only thing I can do is change in Present and Future. Afterwards, though, I have been blocked by an Administrator until today, despite already being unblocked by the sentence applied by the Arbitration Commitee, which makes it strange: how can I have been fred from an Arbitration Commitee blocking and then need the intervention of the Community because of a blocking made by one single Administrator. In any case, whatever I have to do to be accepted back by the Community, I have accepted: I will be peaceful and, again, will not create any new accounts. People who might have been blocked because an Administrator believed it was me without being me is something I can't avoid 100%, it's a risk of using Wikipedia, but that will not happen again from my part. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Consensus at this ANI thread is opposed to unblocking. Furthermore, the community has imposed a one-year moratorium on unblock requests; you may not make another unblock request until at least one year has passed since your last edit (either through this account, through a sock account, or while logged out). Any unblock request you make which does not meet this requirement may be dismissed out of hand. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment

"Distant past" is bit of a misnomer. You have been evading your block on a massive scale. The most recent instances that I'm aware of were on November 14, 2019, coincidentally the same date as the disingenuous comment above. Favonian (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the insults and harassment part. I already stated I will assume as mine all the editions that are attributed to me, regardless. And I will not evade blockings again, since I perfectly understand the valid reasons I was blocked for. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of putting this to rest once and for all, I will create a discussion at ANI posting your request to the community, since you have been in essence banned per WP:3X. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yvon Roy

The article Yvon Roy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, only source is IMDB. No potential for improvement.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Giovanni Michiel, Co-Lord of Serifos

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Giovanni Michiel, Co-Lord of Serifos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Giovanni Michiel, Co-Lord of Serifos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Giovanni Michiel, Co-Lord of Serifos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Michiel, Co-Lord of Serifos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christine Alix de Massy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Alix de Massy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Alix de Massy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Princess Marie Gabriele of Luxembourg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princess Marie Gabriele of Luxembourg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Marie Gabriele of Luxembourg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Isabel Dato, 2nd Duchess of Dato

The article Isabel Dato, 2nd Duchess of Dato has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no indication of notability. A quick search reveals little to no coverage. Having held a noble title is not grounds for inclusion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Isabel Dato, 2nd Duchess of Dato for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isabel Dato, 2nd Duchess of Dato is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Dato, 2nd Duchess of Dato until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hugo Ricciardi O'Neill

The article Hugo Ricciardi O'Neill has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Guliolopez (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Costantino Mario Ruspoli, 4th Prince of Poggio Suasa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Costantino Mario Ruspoli, 4th Prince of Poggio Suasa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Costantino Mario Ruspoli, 4th Prince of Poggio Suasa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

// Timothy :: talk 04:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]