Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulvio Bonavia


 * 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. Can be recreated if notable by somebody without a COI and based on independent sources.  Sandstein  10:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Fulvio Bonavia

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

Pre-packaged content spammed by a spammer. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Doesnot pass WP:SIGCOV. ScriptedDecrypted (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It needs a rewrite to avoid conflict of interest issues, but after a Google News search, it looks like there will be enough reliable sources to establish notability. If no one wants to rewrite the article to provide more impartiality, I would support a delete and starting over from scratch, but I hope we are not there yet. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed some POV parts. I will try to add more NPOV links when I get a chance. Per the above, I think the COI and the notability of the subject can be separated into two separate things to deal with. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That Google News search's top hit is the Daily Mail which is explicitly not considered a reliable source; many of the others listed do not appear at first blush to be reliable soures; and the Esquire article and the Business Insider (which is summarising an article in The New York Times) have merely a single passing mention of the subject's name. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This article's prose looks as though it started out at some point as a copy and paste of the subject's bio page here. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Royal Autumn Crest's assessment and would invoke WP:TNT. This COI/paid editing rehash of a personal website is unsalvageable; if the subject meets notability criteria then an unconnected editor will write it. Ifnord (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm okay with that if it's deemed necessary. I think this subject can meet notability criteria, but it's important that the content be seen as unbiased. I think I've done a bit to remove any biased language put in by the COI editor so far.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2021 (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.