Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Curlo


 * 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. WP:BLPDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Curlo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Curlo does not appear to be Notable either via the provided sources or my searches. While there is recognition that one of his companies is #872 for fastest growing in the US, this should not lend Curlo Notability. Most of the sources listed or I've found are Press Releases, reprinted press releases or other first-party created content (submitted an article to a trade org, business listing, etc.). He does not seem to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Perhaps later in life, he should have an article on Wikipedia. But, for now this seemingly autobiographical promotional article does not show this is the time. Stesmo (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Evaluation of references: #1 a local news blurb, not in depth #2 based on a press release #3 a simply directory listing, no info about the company #8 reprinted press release #9 blog post on social business site, in which company is one of 50 #11 article in which company is one of 5000, each gets short listing #13 blog, although somewhat journalistic; article is not in depth. Conclusion: not notable. LaMona (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2014 (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.