Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Ceccarelli (filmmaker)

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Ceccarelli (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a film producer and director, based almost entirely on primary sources and IMDb and press releases -- out of the 30 references here, the only one that even approaches reliable source coverage in media is a 100-word blurb in his own hometown alt-weekly. None of the sourcing here gets him over WP:GNG, and nothing here confers an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of sourcing that would get him over GNG. As usual, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which any person is entitled to an article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. When you see ext links embedded in the copy, that's a sure sign on a promotional article. Sourcing is equally weak. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little in the way of independent sources which could support the subject's notability. [1] and [2] are the best I found - the first is an interview and the second is of questionable reliability. That combined with the promotional article is a clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2016 (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.