Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Paone

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!} 17:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Paone

[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)

Antonio Paone

There are at least two problems with this article.

First, it is undisclosed paid editing, by a now-blocked undisclosed paid editor. An article almost identical to this one was created on 7 December 2022 in article space, and was then (correctly) moved to draft space by User:MarioGom. This article was then re-created on 26 February 2023 in article space, and the originator was blocked on 27 February 2023. Draft space is already occupied by a copy of this article, which is also undisclosed paid editing, so that this copy can be moved to a bit bucket.

Second, this article, as written, does not establish general notability, because it does not speak for itself, and does not discuss what third parties have written about the subject. It only says what his flack says about him. It says that he exists; we knew that. He likely has been written about by independent secondary sources to a significant extent, but this piece does not summarize those writings. This article does not establish biographical notability. So this article can be deleted while a copy of it is already in draft space. There is no need to review the 17 references, at least at this time, because they should verify what is in the body of the article, which says that he exists. We don't need to do the flack's work for him.

The photograph states that it is the submitter's own work, but it was taken in the subject's mansion, because the submitter is working for the subject. But the submitter has already been correctly blocked.

If a neutral editor wants to develop an article about the subject, the copy of this article in draft space can be a start, but is not currently ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spam that shouldn't have ever made into mainspace in the first place. MarioGom (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UPE/COI and Notability concern as highlighted by the norminator.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ref bombed out the wazoo, Forbes contributor piece and a bunch of PR fluff pieces are all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 4 March 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.