Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Romanelli (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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Romanelli
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Put this up for a AFD a year and a half ago with no response from anybody. Anyway a writer with questionable notability, I am having problems finding anything about him as well. Wgolf (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and I avidly believe A7 is best for this as regardless of the first AfD, this is not the first time at all an article has been speedied despite an AfD. Clearly nothing at all for at least minimally better notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete being a poet in and of itself does not make him notable. What are his works that have recived review, been included in anthologies, or even been published by others them himself? This article has nothing to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please also look at this version of the article, before it was eviscerated in 2013 by an SPA. Though it probably only shows why an A7 would have been inappropriate rather than giving any reason to keep the article. PWilkinson (talk)
 * Delete. Nothing here (or in the pre-blanking version from 2013 either) constitutes a substantive WP:AUTHOR pass, and no reliable source coverage at all has been cited in either version. And the blanking was actually semi-justified, as well, since the pre-blanking version contained both an advertorial slant and some unsourced WP:BLP issues. A writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists — reliable source coverage which verifies a proper claim of notability (rather than mere existence) must be present to support one, but nothing remotely like that has ever been shown in any version of this article all the way back to its original creation. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.