Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Tinucci


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Justin Tinucci

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was written by its subject and reads link anything but encyclopedic article. Notability has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (but not strongly) — it's certainly not a good encyclopaedia article as-is. The subject might possibly have some notability, but it's not convincingly established at present.  If notability is properly established, then keep with a major cleanup.  I'm mostly just voting because I stumbled across it in project space and moved it out so that it would get appropriate attention (either deleted or turned into a reasonable article).   Murph 9000  (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands BLP of minor without RSes - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP without significant coverage in RS. WP:TOOSOON MB 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete This runs afoul of very many inclusion guidelines. 1st it has zero reliable, independent sources. 3 listings are to the subjects own website, which is clearly not indepdent. The other is to IMDb, which is not reliable based on its methods of editing, and also since it has the stated aim of covering as much as possible, while Wikipedia seeks to limit to those subjects that have recieved some level of coverage, it is not a good sign of coverage, only that the person has acted. Next as an autobiography it totally violates the intent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a boosterism site where people can put up articles to boost their career. That is what the WHo's Who publications and Linkedin are for. Wikipedia is meant to be a very comprehensive encyclopedia drawing from reliable, secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:PROMO and unsourced BLP. Strictly a vanity page with no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2016 (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.