Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Bundini (2nd nomination)

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Bundini[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)

every single source in this is basically the same and all "fake" news sites published by black hat SEO firms. I can find no actual coverage of Bundini in reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The use of fake news sites to give the impression of notability means this article was almost certainly created for promotional purposes. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet to establish notability under WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question As the creator of the previous AFD submission for this person, I have no ardent desire to have him found notable, but, aside from Thrive Global, which states explicitly that that section of the site is for anyone who wanted to sign up as a contributor, what basis is there for judging all the cited sources as fake? Largoplazo (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo see the discussion here and as an example directly from this article, check this sources about us page and this one. The first of which contains several stock photos and other people's linkedin photos, the second is the same. And this site which is identical to this one and operated by the same people.Praxidicae (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – What a weird bunch of sources this search pulled up. All non-mainstream publications or just passing mentions of him posing in photo for a lifestyle magazine. A lot of promo content, too. WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 23 January 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.