Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Urbani

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Urbani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vincent Urbani

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am the article subject, and I recognize that I am not a notable or public figure. As a private individual, I have no desire to maintain a Wikipedia article about myself, sharing private and personal informations. Additionally, some of the information within the article is incorrect. Vincenturbani2023 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way for now to verify that subject is really you. This page is on WP since 2012. You never asked this before. AAonlyA (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can prove the subject is me because I have access to all the emails and webpage related to my photographic work. The article shares personal and incorrect information and this is the reasons why I'm asking for immediate deletion. Vincenturbani2023 (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, Germany, Italy, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems not good news coverage.--AAonlyA (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- if the nom can prove it is about him then we should delete it as a courtesy, if not weak keep. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO (creative professional). WP:BLP applies to this article. Sources in the article are a perm dead link and a link to a site the subject is associated with that fails WP:IS. I removed unsourced material per WP:BLP and WP:V, and promo links and nothing is left. before, after I was unable to find any WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:BLP level sources. BLP is a policy and requires strong sourcing. I have no idea if the above person is the subject, but unless someone can find multiple BLP level sources to meet WP:N, this should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 03:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has been cut back to one sentence. This is what it looked like before this AfD.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue - after removing the unsourced material almost nothing remains and if there are not other sources then fails GNG, even if the request didn't come from the subject --DannyS712 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFAICS the article has never had the Wikipedia-type sources required to support the content for a BLP. The subject doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Notwithstanding, the article has been proposed for deletion (presumably) by its subject, unless independent, reliable sourcing is found to establish notability there is a strong argument for its deletion. Rupples (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.