Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano De Nardis

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano De Nardis[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)

There's not a single piece of in-depth coverage among the sources - it's 29 pieces of passing mention. Previousy rejected twice at AfC for that reason, now the editor has decided to bypass that annoying hurdle. Insufficient personal notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikcord (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A hundred passing mentions doth not notability make. WP:NOTINHERITED--working on notable projects doesn't necessarily confer notability. Has the creator divulged WP:COI yet? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of page link it.Nikcord (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see, the "lots of nothing much" approach is exactly why your article does not fulfill sourcing requirements... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a good example of meaningless references: [1]. Among other things, this is a bit of a WP:CIR issue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked about a dozen of the refs; all passing mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Long article for non-notable subject Alpateya (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. I was unable to find anything that substantiates notability. No significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what we need is indepth sourcing about him. The format of listing every film in which he was involved in making a costume as the main part of the article, and basically trying to latch onto others notability is a default sign of promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 21 March 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.