Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raimondo Inconis

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. Star Mississippi 18:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Note: extended-protected to prevent recreation. Can be salted in case of further spam; see talk page of closing admin. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raimondo Inconis

[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)

As was the case with the previous version of the article, the problem is that it imparts personal opinions and does not appropriately source any of its claims. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and all article content must be verifiable, which usually means attribution to reliable sources. The way the article currently exists plainly contradicts all these policies and guidelines. More strictly relevant to this AfD is notability. For a standalone article to exist, its subject must be notable, which means there must be significant coverage about it in multiple high-quality secondary sources. The article currently provides no sources that meet those requirements. See also WP:BIO for the notability guideline for biographies. At least one of the sources currently provided was made by the creator of the article for the express purpose of being used in a Wikipedia article, which completely undermines any reliability it might have had (see Talk:Raimondo_Inconis). Note that a (as far as I can remember) substantially identical version of the article was previously deleted under CSD G11. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Well when your sourcing is the orchestra, the VIAF and LOC (which are databases), you have an issue. For being the world famous person he is, there is zero coverage found, like anywhere, nothing in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnewspapers... The New York Times devotes a whole zero pages to him. Something is fishy. Puffy claims and lack of sourcing, it's a delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find anything to support notability. In addition the article creator seems to have engaged in cross wiki spamming to promote this subject. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the talk page, the article's creator claims that he is trying spread knowledge of the contrabassoon. But since that instrument has been used in orchestras for centuries and already has its own very nice article here, it is far from unknown and does not need to be propped up with a shamelessly self-promotional article for one guy who plays it, no matter how virtuosic he may be. The self-promotional efforts here and elsewhere are pretty obvious, and perhaps are intended to drum up sales for his book: [1]. What matters here is significant coverage of his greatness by reliable music journalists and classical music experts, which has not happened. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 07:21, 19 June 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.