Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Farioli

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. Deor (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Farioli[edit]

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

Subject seems to be a largely non-notable digital marketing consultant. Co-written two books and appears on lecture circuit. Author's only contribution to Wikipedia seems to be this article, which leads me to suspect marketing puff piece. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I left a note on the original author's talk page (User talk:FICB78), and it seems that an early incarnation of this article may have been speedily deleted? Can anyone verify? --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, speedy deletion WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) September 13 by Peridon (talk · contribs) after being tagged by Trivialist (talk · contribs). The deleted version is the same as the present version in overall outline but with minor wording differences, and had been created the same day as its deletion by the same user as this version. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are either not reliable or merely mention the subject in passing - in other words, insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You'd think someone supposedly expert in digital marketing would at least have paid some attention to what is required of a Wikipedia article. But there is no evidence of passing WP:GNG: there are many sources, but none appear to be reliable, independent, and in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't add much to the previous posts, except to comment that a lot of marketing people seem to be fixed in their ways and don't bother to do research on the place they're proposing to promote in. At least this one is written in a fairly neutral way, unlike most of them who cram buzz word on top of buzz word ending up with a load of meaningless guff. Peridon (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may avoid buzz words and extravagant adjectives , but it has a considerable amount of full caps for company and product names, has a quote from the subject giving Emerson as his inspiration, includes some remarkably minor awards, and says a good deal of it two or three times over. But yes, it's not from the usual network(s). DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2014 (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.