Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessio Rastani

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 December 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Rastani[edit]

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

This is not a significant person and there is no independent information about him other than the articles relating to the scandal around his television appearance, which are perfectly well documented and referenced elsewhere in wikipedia.There is no justification for a personal biography page which is merely a repetition of the same information. The individual is a self-confessed attention seeker, and it seems likely that the creation of this biography page is merely another attempt by him to establish an online identity for self-publicity purposes; it is not a page that has any merit. Rondoggy (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- The question is whether he meets WP:N/WP:BIO...not whether you dislike him (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). He is indeed a "headline-hunter"...(he has leadingtrader.com)...but he nonetheless is getting coverage (Huffington Post) and in other languages as well [1]. His life is being scrutinized in relation to the event (as a basis for ad hominem attacks).Smallman12q (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete- Don't try to reduce this to the level of personal dislike. My argument is that he is not a person of note, and therefore not worthy of having a page. I originally put up a brief piece about him, which you incorrectly removed as an ad hominem attack. You then set up a page on Mr Rastani, which rather glossed over his lack of expertise and only referenced the secondary articles that contained no additional information about the situation.

WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Everything about Mr Rastani originates from a single incident, which was the product of his own actions and subsequently revealed to be an attention seeking exercise. That incident is already covered in wikipedia (BBC Controversies). The various online stories are quotes from, or links to, the same video clip and original Telegraph article. There is no independent biographical information about Mr Rastani that hasn't originated from him! There is no interest in him outside that original event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondoggy (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough as of yet. All information on page relates to one event. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rondoggy sums it up well. Colon el Tom 03:25, 10 October 2011 (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.