Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Imperato (3rd 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 redirect to Florida gubernatorial election, 2010. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Imperato
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as the notability threshold. Most of the coverage about him is referential, not significant. The only significant coverage he appears to have is that related to his alleged fraud activity, which does not seem notable in itself. Article was deleted once and another Afd ended in No consensus. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage other than the fraud allegations. A lot of the sources are are iffy in terms of reliability as well.--Dwc89 (talk) 15:00, 11 Julyi 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Florida gubernatorial election, 2010, as he was on the ballot in that general election. An examination of the sources supports the nom.'s assertion that he falls short of satisfying the criteria of WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN, and thus does not merit a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that is an appropriate page for redirect.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. His unique political ideology and financial career are enough to establish notability. Academic Challenger (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, has received the requisite press coverage to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. As AC notes above, his unique views have garnered press attention for his campaigns. Coverage of the SEC suit against him solidifies his notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete an unsuccessful candidate for the nomination of a minor party is not notable.  In this case, it's difficult to see him as a genuine candidate at all. The only conceivable thing that is noteworthy is the essentially zero support that he had even within his party.   DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "A minor party"? Did you even read the article? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With the statement, "an unsuccessful candidate for the nomination of a minor party is not notable", I guess you should nominate Mike Gravel, Russell Means, Richard Lamm, Alan Keyes, etc. for deletion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect per JayJasper and WP:POLITICIAN (bottom paragraph). I'm not seeing significant coverage of his "unique political ideology and financial career". I'm just seeing a small handful of local articles giving routine campaign press, several dead links and non-RS citations, numerous cites that merely mention Imperato in passing, and just a few (I think only two) articles on the fraud allegations. Sorry, but that dosen't quite cut it. What coverage he does have justifies a redirect, however.--Rollins83 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per JayJasper. I also am not finding that he passes WP:BIO. ANYONE who runs for any elected office in the US is bound to get some press coverage, therefore the higher standard of WP:POLITICIAN should be met in most cases. This is one of those where redirecting to the appropriate election article is correct, IMHO of course. Wine Guy  ~Talk  00:08, 16 July 2013 (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.