Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Capozzi


 * 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. Seddon talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Louis Capozzi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Oleaginous CV, dubiously referenced, for somebody who doesn't appear to meet WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fast work, McMatter! -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. A few cites on GS but not enough for WP:Prof. Notability as a journalist looks marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC).
 * Note: I'm surprised to see a mention of journalism (immediately above); but because of it, this discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions too. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete, I found this article but took it to a Teahouse question as I wasn't experienced enough to know what to do; @Hoary kindly brought it here. My feeling is that Capozzi is probably only marginally notable once all the publicity traced to himself and PRSA (of which he served as president) has been stripped away. But in any case, the article is so awful in its current form of a congratulatory CV that I'd go for complete deletion and start again even if he is notable. Also the article was written by an editor whose sole work was this article and that of the PRSA, suggesting the whole thing might have a big conflict of interest. Elemimele (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Ideally, the article should be blown up and started over, but there appears to be a kernel of notability. Cleaned it up a bit. Actually there were TWO editors (Himehdi12 (creator) and Eagerbeaver150 (2017-19)) who did not declare COI or PAID, but had a focus only on Lou or PRSA Foundation (the latter not being the same as PRSA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP, such as PRWeb etc. The industry award is not meaningful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 7 September 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.