Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilaria Latini


 * 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. Relisted 4 times? Really? The comments below requesting that the article be deleted are correct. We do not keep unsourced BLPs. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ilaria Latini

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Strange article that is an effectively unsourced BLP and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  12:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (push)  @ 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this page only became like this after 11 edits from User:31.52.242.199. I have reverted these edits, but retained the AfD notice. Please re-view the page, it should meet standards again. —Msmarmalade (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (visit)  @ 13:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹   03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Msmarmalade: I'm a little unclear on why you believe that this article meets WP:GNG, given the lack of a single reliable source (at least, reliable in the sense our policies intend) in the article as you restored it, could you explain why you believe it does? --j⚛e deckertalk 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep, Joe Decker: I mean in the sense that it was nominated for removal due to the edits that made it unreadable, and it is now only as bad as any other article at this level of notability, and just needs a bit of work. I believe a simple BLP unsourced tag would be more appropriate than deleting entirely.—Msmarmalade (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (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.