Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ameglio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ameglio

Hardly notable. Found only about 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I've see about 140 googles with a few minor media mentions... I'd rather see it cleaned up - but I can't speak spanish :\ Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Agree with previous poster in that I found many Google hits, but most were in Spanish, a language I cannot read. It does seem to be correct that Pietro Ameglio was a co-author of a Spanish language book on Gandhi, and his most recent appearances in the news involve trying to block the destruction of an ostensibly historic hotel building in Mexico.Crypticfirefly 03:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete He's a minor figure on the fringes of Mexican peace activists. His writings, such as this, are largely rehash and the google mentions are mostly on specialty sites. To the point about 140 google hits, please click to the last page and you will see that half or more represent duplicate content. Dottore So 05:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As a comparison, wikipediea gets 196 hits by this method. [1] Kappa 08:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but that's a completely fake comparison. Haven't you ever wondered how one of the world's busiest websites only has 200 non-duplicated references? The preponderance of Wiki-hosted results throws Google's duplication tagging for a loop. If you remove the wikipedia site from your search, you have 10 million different results and you don't trigger a Google duplicate tag. Here's one way to do the [search]. Per mgm, the news sites are not, in my view, notable, but I admit that is my view. [This] is fairly typical. Sur al Sur is hardly notable. And the article less so - a sort of quo-vadis on the nonviolent movement, mostly consisting of Gandhi remembered. I don't see notability, my vote to delete stands. Dottore So 17:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Another comparison is with google, which gets 432 "unique hits" [2] the moment. Perhaps you'd like to explain why this comparison is completely false as well? Kappa 19:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok. As I said above, 'you have to remove the site itself from your search.' So go back to google and type in google and then add -google.com and see if it makes a difference. Dottore So 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, now wikipedia gets 852 [3] and google gets 511. [4]. Kappa 23:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I should have been clearer. As you may know, Google limits its returns on searches to 1000, so as it processes through the top 1000 results it filters for similar results and eliminates duplication in the displayed 1000 . What you have discovered is that searching google for "google" returns roughly 50% duplicate content on the top 1000 pageranked matches. (Excluding the site is a good way to get higher individual returns in your 1000 sample since, for high-profile sites like Google or Wikipedia, the site itself has a high pagerank score). Put in a random word ("frank", "hairdress", "kappa", whatever) and click through - you will see that most times Google returns a duplicate message before you reach the 1000 limit even if the search term has millions of results and is seemingly random. This is because there is inherent duplication in the 1000 sample that Google returns on whatever search you do. Let me sum up: "Pietro Ameglio" triggers a TOTAL of 124 results of which half are duplicated; that is a sample size of 100% Wikipedia generates millions of returns; the duplicated content on the sample you have linked to above (which is itself so small as to be unrepresentative) is a mere 15%; the overall duplication, were it possible to run a 100% sample, would probably be considerably smaller still. Your google link is also a good example. Between the time you conducted the search, and the time I clicked it, the pagerank of the top 1000 sites that mentioned Google had change significantly enough to alter the duplicated results within the sample by over 15%. For high return search terms (like Wikipedia) simply waiting an hour (or hell,maybe five minutes) between running the search can change substantially the duplication level in your 1000 sample. You surely didn't think that google only somehow triggered 511 non-duplicated entries out of tens of millions of results!? Dottore So 01:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to suggest you look at the quality of the links rather than the number of them that show up in Google. If the majority is from reputable news services (I didn't check), I think it can be worth keeping the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Trollderella please, PLEASE stop voting in VfD. I am factual (verifiably) and verifiable (factually), but can't claim an entry in an Encyclopedia. When factual and verifiable become the only criteria for inclusion, someone will let you know and then your votes will be welcome indeed. Admin, please ignore this vote; it's tendentious. Dottore So 07:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more info and sources can be provided. Elfguy 01:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notable people tend to have a last name. Radiant_>|< 19:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep per Crypticfirefly. Incidentally this guy appears to be so notable he only has a last name. Kappa 19:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.