Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasquale Foresi

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Foresi[edit]

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

Seems to have a possible / strong conflict of interest going on here. No sources whatsoever; and it's written far from neutral. The Undead Never Die (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I think the article looks pretty bad at the moment, from searching for more information it appears as if Foresi was at least somewhat notable as a part of the Focolare Movement, which itself (puffery aside) has been newsworthy. It does need a major re-write, however, even if the sources to do so exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~Pure 100% copivio, probably must be deleted immediately, unless somebody feels like saving the article.~~ I went over and rewritten it. Still needs attention, though, it's just a stub. Hafspajen (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently, he's the co-founder of a movement with over 100,000 followers. To me, that seems inherently notable. --Ashenai (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2015 (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.