Talk:Giovanni Guida

Conflict of Interest banner

This article - and several other language versions - has had a previous history of deletion due to promotional verbiage / COI editing. No COI is declared here but it would be naive to think this is unrelated in some form or other to the subject given the promotional tone of the biography seciont. The sourcing - well there are plenty of them, but the hand of a PR company looks very close to many of them. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley Could you please help me rewrite the text and make it encyclopedic? I'm not capable of doing so, but it would be great to receive your valuable input! I contacted your English Wikipedia contributors via email, and they told me I would receive assistance if I'd misused the tone and sources. Thank you. Profbov2025 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am able to help. The promotional piece is all in the biography section and it's all the aspects which are not hard facts. So it is a hard fact that the subject uses grattage and frottage, but it is not such a concrete fact that his work are "airy compositions". So the first paragraph is fine, it's factual with sources. Much of the second paragraph is an interpretation. The third and last paragraph is a bit of a mix, some facts, some opinions.

We have sourcing for Caesarius Diaconus but not so much on the other works. The last time the article was deleted it was noted as odd that there was only one piece of work sourced and yet tons of publicity.

Can you clarify whether you are the subject, know the subject, have business and/or personal dealings with the subject? This is not a blocker but transparency is extremely important under WP:COI. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley Thank you so much for your reply! No, I'm just getting interested in Grattage and frottage, so I'm simply asking you to proceed according to your own rules and check the notes. You can also write a short, but encyclopedic text, and unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Thank you. Profbov2025 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley I'm trying to follow your directions, but obviously I'm not sure if I'm using an encyclopedic tone. Profbov2025 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Profbov2025. Yes I can see you have removed all the "interperative" wording and it's now more factual and thus encyclopedic, so that is an improvement.

There remains the issue that there is reasonable sourcing for Caesarius Diaconus but not for any other work. Now notability here seems to be based on the overall press coverage, which is OK but I would expect someone with all the coverage to have more specifics on their other works. Do you have more information and sources here? ChrysGalley (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n2022005213.html

Library Congress of Washington: Here is his book on grattage; as you can see, it is inextricably linked to this technique

@ChrysGalley thanks! Profbov2025 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not a book, that is a "meta" database entry, so pulling data from the places listed. It's a "linked name" database entry, as it mentions on the top of the page, which would head up any material that may get linked there in the future. So it won't count as a reliable source. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley Absolutely not. Here is the book on Grattage and pictorial phenomenology.https://www.loc.gov/item/2021355678/

As for the other works, you can find them mentioned in the Italian encyclopedia Treccani. They are titled Apotheosis, And You Will Be Healed of All Diseases (which went viral during the pandemic), and the work dedicated to Dante Alighieri

https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giovanni-guida/ Profbov2025 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that reference is to a book, with LOC number 2021355678 and oclc number 1262362960. It's a 49 page e-book/PDF, it looks like some sort of brochure. Now that is potentially a useful source, but it depends what exactly it says. Usually it's better if someone else writes the material, otherwise it's not an independent source, particularly if the subject arranged the distribution (i.e. it is self printed). Treccani is part of the Da Agostini / Media Data Factory consortium: they are content providers, and much of their material is paid-for. A PR agency approaches Media Data and asks for an entry as part of their content distribution. Now not everything is paid for, but when it's all mixed in then you can't rely on any particular piece to be independent. What we need is something like a newspaper / magazine to give some details on a few of their other work. The risk here is that if we rely on just one piece of work with sources, and nothing reliable sourcing other work, then like the last 5 times, the article will get deleted. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley Absolutely not. In the Treccani and De Agostini encyclopedias, no content is paywalled: these are the most important Italian encyclopedias! Forbes also covers other works,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/natashagural/2021/10/21/italian-artist-giovanni-guida-embraces-max-ernsts-groundbreaking-techniques-to-create-narratives-straddling-the-holy-and-the-secular/

https://forbes.com.mx/forbes-life/cultura-giovanni-guida-el-artista-italiano-heredero-del-surrealismo/

and the Jerusalem Post covers other works as well.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-837841

You can analyze this article by article. Wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia and should not remove content that is already well-established and widely recognized. Such persistent deletion is unfortunate, especially when we see other pages featuring young people who create models but are not at all internationally notable. In my opinion, the text should be made encyclopedic, but one should not limit it to value judgments, because at that point it would no longer be an encyclopedia entry but a subjective opinion. Thanks Profbov2025 (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the Treccani issue. It is obviously free because PR agencies want their content published. So the PR agencies give Treccani both the contents and some money, in return for which Media Data Factory provides the content distribution channel via Treccani. Hence it's not independent, because it's impossible to tell if MDF handled the material, even if a lot of people use it without knowing it.

Very few articles get deleted, it's under 1%, but this subject has been deleted twice in English, plus in at least 3 other languages. That's unusual.

On the other hand, the Forbes and JP articles can be used here for the other works of art. So yes, they could be linked in to that part of the article. ChrysGalley (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley First of all, I sincerely thank you for your invaluable help! The page was most likely removed because it was promotional in nature and did not have the encyclopedic style it may have now. This was certainly misleading.

All of these references are already present in the article, and I kindly ask you to verify them: Forbes US, Forbes Mexico, Euronews London, the Jerusalem Post, El Heraldo de Mexico, Milenio Mexico, El Debate, Tatler, La Nacion, etc. Please check and help ensure that the entire text maintains an encyclopedic tone. Beyond providing all the available sources, there is little more I can do. Thank you once again for everything, and I truly hope to receive your final, last-minute review, including a thorough check of the references, especially regarding which ones need to be removed.

Thank you. Profbov2025 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Profbov2025- I have made a further few small changes, and released in to mainspace. Note that the New Page Patrol and/or Article for Deletion processes may still query this article, but I have recorded above why I have released.

As a more minor point, and outside the scope of Article for Creation, the article has two mini WP:CITEBOMB with 5 references to support a not particularly controversial pair of facts. Usually one or two are fine, three references if it's controversial, but five starts to get a bit unhelpful to the casual user. So perhaps consider reducing that to say 3 sources, it also reduces the administration on keeping sources alive given the risk of link rot. For that, maybe put a few links through the Wayback Machine or Archive Today, if they are important for the article, so the Jerusalem Post article, Euronews, La Stampa, Vanity Fair, or some of them. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Finding notability and verification via GNG WP:BASIC rather than WP:ARTIST. BLP. Submitting editor has been diligent to remove promotional language and questionable sources from initial draft.
  A previous article on this subject was deleted 5 years ago, perhaps on WP:TOOSOON. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley Thank you so much for your kindness and professionalism! Profbov2025 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: In view of the two previous deletions of previous articles on this subject, here and in other languages, it is extra important for a WP:BLP to be conservative with the tone. Currently it is one list of promotional pieces. We also need confirmation from the submitting editor as to whether they have any connection with the subject, under WP:COI. This is not a block to getting an article online, however undeclared COI is an issue, and the previous deletions mean that some care is needed here. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)