Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiorenzo Manganiello


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Fiorenzo Manganiello

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Non-existant refs.  scope_creep Talk  18:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only one source seemed to focus on the subject, and I'm not sure it's reliable. Articles authored by the subject or short profiles do not establish notability. YordleSquire (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep: It passes the notability criteria under WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as he was the vice president of Banque Profil de Gestion, a professor at Geneva Business School and was named as Swiss Blockchain Expert for 2018 by Acquisition International. He has significant coverage in and. The issue of "Non-existant refs" can be resolved using wayback machine like this  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesfab (talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:SPA editor.   scope_creep Talk 


 * Comment
 * Ref 1 is a profiles and they are not considered significant coverage and general non-rs.
 * Ref 2 is another profile is a non-rs.
 * Ref 3 states he is a new ambassador which means WP:NPROF can apply here.
 * Ref 4 isn't significant coverage. It is another profile and non-rs.
 * Ref 5 is another profile and is not significant. Ref 5 is another short report.

None of these references have byline informations. They are just profile and are junk.

As regards satisify WP:NPROF, an examine of both Scopus and Google Scholar finds nothing of worth. This is a WP:BLP, the subject fails the three criteria for WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  16:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ref 1 is not "profiles" and I am not WP:SPA by any mean. Even if, let's say for the argument, I was, in the very article it says "The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However, a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them." Mesfab (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 is a classic profile likely written by the person himself. It states in the description "Profil de Gestion".   scope_creep Talk  20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Banque Profil de Gestion is a Swiss Bank. Mesfab (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets examine the articles first block of refs:
 * Ref 1 Former contributor, written by himself, like much of coverage. That is non-rs
 * Ref 2   Content appears to be written by Manganiello himself. Unable to view the vlog.
 * Ref 3 is linkedin. Non-rs
 * Ref 4 404
 * Ref 5 Raw url search listing. Don't see his name.
 * Ref 6 404
 * Ref 7 Interview
 * Ref 8 A landing page non-rs
 * Ref 9 404
 * Ref 10 Another very short exclusive interview.

Not a single one of these references show that WP:BIO, or WP:SIGCOV for that matter. They are shockingly trash. UPE article.  scope_creep Talk  17:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There are multiple other reliable sources which have significant coverage of the subject such as, , , , . Mesfab (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One could argue that the article needs improvements but it is a notable subject. Mesfab (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No its not. It far from notable.   scope_creep Talk  22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, let's say we trash these sources, but he is a notable subject as he was the vice president of Banque Profil de Gestion which satisfies the first clause of WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Mesfab (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He satisfies notability requirements, but you need sourcing that talks about him. "Just because" isn't really what's needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I will have a look at the five references above:
 * Ref 16 It states: "publié par La rédaction en partenariat avec Lian Foundation" The Lian foundation was created by Fiorenzo Manganiello. So that is PR and non-rs.
 * Ref 17 This is TedX profile. It is WP:PRIMARY and its a profile.
 * Ref 18 This states "Par L'agence Delta pour Lian Group" So this PR.
 * Ref 19 That site is probably non-rs but it does state: "Lopez told HackerNoon this story exclusively." Lopez is part of the Lian Group. So that PR as well.
 * Ref 20 That has no author information and looks and reads PR. It states "Content produced on behalf of The LIAN Group".

So all these PR and are non-rs.  scope_creep Talk  22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion so I'd like to see input from more editors who frequent AFDs. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There needs to be coverage as its a WP:BLP. In an Afd you must be able to show evidence that the person is notable. The standard best-practice per consensus since last summer is a provide WP:THREE references. Provide three secondary sources that prove the person is notable.    scope_creep Talk  22:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: PROMO. Sources are all primary or in non-RS. Cite Highlighter has none that are green, most are red/orange, meaning non-reliable sources or PR items. I don't see any we can use from the extensive list above. I can't find any either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And the crypto items don't fill me with hope; an article about crypto as the future of banking, when most NFT's are worthless now and FTX has gone bankrupt, don't paint a rosy picture as to the reliability of such sources as used here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Promotional article, sources do not prove notability or are promotional as said above. Spinixster   (chat!)  03:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – Any significant coverage comes from non-reliable/paid sources/non-independent sources. TLA  tlak 04:44, 16 March 2024 (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.