Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bianca


 * 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 Draftify.. Procedural close and draftification following comments in discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

James Bianco

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

I got nothing per Google search thus fail WP:GNG. Kanoouwa1 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Keep I can find independent sources. ,,, and are enough to establish notability.Kasar Wuya (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep There is evidence of notability as I can see there Bloomberg News and CNBC Zafafadubu (talk) 1:14,13  November 2022 (UTC)
 * CU note to closer - the account that nominated this, and both of the accounts that have !voted keep, are socks of the article's author, who is blocked for spam. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural close and draftify: This is a bad faith nomination in an attempt to protect the article by gaming !votes. The same sockmaster created the article, then used sockpuppets to revert a draftification, creating this AFD, and then !voting keep. It should be procedurally closed, and draftified again. Otherwise, delete since sources seem to be mostly passing mentions, brief quotes, etc. MarioGom (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that MarioGom's proposal is a good solution to bad-faith procedural gaming, (unless you see consensus to delete of course). Girth Summit  (blether)  22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the coverage is not in-depth. Any attempt to create an article on this subject in the future should be required to go through AfC and be reviewed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2022 (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.