Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Fucilla

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fucilla[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NBIO the individual must be the subject of multiple RS. Fucilla only has [1] and it hasn't been cited here. Most of the content is copied and pasted from IMBD, with scant regard for WP:CITEIMDB the author hasn't even bothered to paraphrase. Just compare the first sentence of the IMBD page with the first sentence for the WP page and you will see clear wp:cv. Meanwhile, this statement "In 2018, Fucilla was maliciously targeted and investigated as part of a £7m investment fraud. Fucilla was acquitted by the jury and in 2019 he issued a multi million pound civil action, suing the CPS and Avon and Somerset Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office" is sourced from the Bristol Post blog, which incidentally isn't mentioned in wp:perennial sources. The also seems to be a degree of wp:synth in the interpretation of the sources and while WP:ORIGINAL may be acceptable over on IMDB it is not acceptable here. Finally, WP:BLPSOURCES states "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Considering that a significant portion of the article is contentious, we might as well pull the whole article. GDX420 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage of Fucilla is lacking, and is mostly constrained to his role as an acquitted co-defendant in a fraud case [2]. --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 10:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage does not rise to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2020 (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.