Hi, there. That's the exact reason leading to the deletion of the article. In the italian version, the promotional contents were even more emphasized. Regards.--L736Edimmi 18:34, 9 feb 2010 (CET)
- Actually, the conclusion of the community is that the organization is not noteworthy. The article was evidently promotional being essentially a collection of slogans and political goals more than a real description of the organization itself. Also its real coverage is very limited (just six small sections in the whole Italian territory) and so its life. The organization was mentioned by some newspapers, most of them of local coverage, more for its attempts to draw attention rather than for the weight and importance of its initiatives - which by the way had practically no follow up at all by the population. Most of the sources reported and also cited by you are very small local newspapers. Espresso is a quality source - same group as Repubblica - you may consider it as an italian equivalent of the U.S. Time magazine, but also Espresso dealt with this organization as a "local (regional) matter". The conclusion of the it.wiki community was then that the contents of the article was both promotional and not noteworthy due to the very limited importance of the organization. This was confirmed also by the voting procedure, with a large majority (23 against 9).
- As far as the block of the user is concerned, it was all originated by his behaviour. As soon as the article was proposed to deletion, he started sending controversial messages in the individual talks of the users favourable to the deletion, including mine, accusing for "censorship", "bad faith" and "political reasons" as the real motivations and paying almost no attention at all at the replies. Then he started a "call for vote" to influence the voting procedure then eventually he fell into personal attacks against some users. All that caused him to be warned first and then temporarily banned after continuing. Immediately after, other new users started reacting in the discussion using exactly the same arguments and behaviour and a quick check revealed that actually the source was still the same user (escaped from the block using a sockpuppet). This caused his ban to be extended. The overall feeling was that that user was quite far from the five pillars and not cooperative to the project. Hope this can help you. --L736Edimmi 12:28, 11 feb 2010 (CET)