Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Bombardo

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bombardo[edit]

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted, let alone shown. I also question whether the subject actually exists, since all other edits by the creator have been vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see the notability of this individual. Certainly the University of St. Thomas is notable, but merely the fact of going there doesn't make one important. Article also claims his work was published in several areas, but cites no references to back this up.--Slartibartfast1992 03:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not too convinced that being published in the academic planner is too notable. Nor does an entry in a small magazine cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Photos for a minor student publication and a very local newspaper is not notability. DGG (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tony Bombardo has work that is going to become large. Everybody starts somewhere and his photography is not amateurish in any way shape or form. 1:40, 15 June 2009
Speedy delete, as he has achieved nothing worthy of an encyclopedia as of yet. A couple of appearances in extremely minor publications counts for next to nothing, and basing articles off personal discussions with the subject is clearly in violation of our policy of reliable sources. I was about to speedy delete before I saw that this had been nominated here. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get Lives, are all you guys for real about how into this stuff you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.154.252 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better researched and more notable articles have met that fate. 220.101.91.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete Zero notability, doesn't go anywhere near WP:BIO standards. The subject has already been the subject of two previous A7 tags. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Get Lives" comment is out of line. In my short time on Wiki I have never voted for a delete or commented an article negatively, but in this case it seems someone tried to advertise their average photography and then got a little angry it would be deleted. Editors on here try their best to maintain this immensely comprehensive and important project. Future generations will get informed on Wiki. Although everything on here is not quite perfect, please refrain from entering such juvenile comments. And if you do, please accompany brave comments with a brave signature. Turqoise127 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2009 (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.