Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giacomo Vose

Giacomo Vose

Giacomo Vose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Among the eight sources, articles from corriere.it and iltirreno.it are full-fledged interviews. Three of them either focus on Wishew or are affiliated with Wishew. thisdaylive.com and cityandcity.it are unbylined and one is from an unknown website. Sources related to Wishew are largely routine and lack in-depth, independent coverage. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Italy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete There are a couple of possibly good sources, such as ansa.it, il tirenno, city&city. However, they all tell the same story, which sounds like the information comes from a single source. Also, given that this is a start-up I'm thinking it's TOOSOON. Oddly (or maybe not, but it seems like it to me) three of the sources are in African publications, one of which has a "click here to to get featured on our Entrepreneur Spotlight" so I think we can discount that one (technext24.com). Some of the sources are clearly about the software, not the person, and usually the person's notability can't precede that of the product. I also note that the article is by a single editor. I could agree to draftify but my impression is that it would have to linger in draft for a while because it's unlikely that clear notability will resolve soon. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Coverage from City&City and Technext24 passes WP:BASIC, and establish GNG. The article is now rated Start-class, but I see new coverage added over time. Technext24 is a possible good source, and the publication does not carry the Sponsored tag, as verified by comparing both articles. Lastly, the subject role at Arduino is significant, and the subject is likely to meet ANYBIO. Majority of the sources used are not independent of Wishew but routines.--Afí-afeti (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Technext24 is a black-hat SEO website that charges for providing backlinks. I’m glad you noticed their Sponsored section, but there’s something you missed. In their rate card, they explicitly mention offering a Special Feature Article:

  • Published with writer's author tag (not SPONSORED)
  • Up to 3 in-story backlinks

  And then there is Giacomo Vose’s article, which contains two backlinks in the very first paragraph. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for sharing the PDF, and I believe it is self-explanatory. According to the PDF: "Unlike Sponsored Articles, Our editorial team crafts engaging narratives that position your brand effectively. Ideal for product and app reviews." Giacomo is not a product or an app, that needs review. That what the Special Feature Article is all about according to the PDF. Am I wrong? @Jeraxmoira, because the website say's otherwise. I didn't also see 3 in-story backlinks, and here's another news on Twitter (now X.), you can also find backlinks. Does this also make the news a featured post? Afí-afeti (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Let's look into this: Forbes charges for special feature article in US & Italy, with the tag "BrandVoice | Paid Program", or RollingStone, which also charge for special feature post in the UK with the tag at the end of the article: "Rolling Stone UK publishes articles from a variety of contributors which express a wide range of viewpoints. The positions taken in these articles are not necessarily those of Rolling Stone UK". Afí-afeti (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I leave with this, we credit the western publications, and discredit African publications. Like the Nigeria newspapers. It's a global thing, and not an African thing. Till we understand this, we wouldn't stop tagging possible good sources as "black-hat SEO website". Afí-afeti (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Ideal for product and app reviews" does not mean it is only for product and app reviews. Someone with your experience should be able to interpret what is written explicitly. It also states "up to 3 in-story backlinks", which does not mean there must be exactly three in-story backlinks. At this point, you should stop over-interpreting language that has a single, clear meaning.

  The first backlink in the Twitter article you’ve tagged here internally redirects to their own previous coverage and the remaining backlinks simply credit the original sources of information. If you are going to equate Forbes or Rolling Stone with an unknown tech website, then nothing I say is likely to make this any clearer. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn’t want to go back and front with this. I’m open to other editor’s options and in good faith: I would stop commenting to focus on the draft I’m working on. Afí-afeti (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Many of the sources appear to be low quality churnalism and/or paid for PR media, or are tangential to Vose. Not seeing three clearly independent and indepth sources to meet WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2026 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.