Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca del Bono


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Luca del Bono

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hotel manager. References are almost all dead links, aside from one primary source (the subject's purported company website) and two mentions in gossip-type columns that contain the subject's name only once, in articles that only tangentially mention him. Google Trends search turns up "Not enough search volume to show results." Searching for subject mentions, I found only one additional reliable secondary source hit, a fluff piece promoting a new club in a hotel he was managing, in Travel and Leisure Online. I don't believe this rises to any level of notability. Rockypedia (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's an entrepreneur not a "hotel manager." He's interviewed in the Italian business newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore.. There's an article in Italian Vogue. An Evening Standard article includes significant coverage. His newest venture gets him a mention in the New York Times that discusses him. He has a Bloomberg profile page.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Response: I take issue with calling him an "entrepreneur" - I know that whoever wrote this article called him that, but not one source calls him that. He's ID'd as either a "manager" or "advisor" to hotel management. At best you could make an argument that he's a consultant in the hospitality business. Just my two cents, on that term only. Rockypedia (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete or TNT  See comment below. There is virtually nothing salvable in the article, although the sources found by Samuel J. Howard give a glimmer of notability. I find no mention of him in the list of "references" -- in fact, some of the links there are so irrelevant that I have no idea what was intended. If someone wants to completely re-do the article, it could be saved. But if it is in its current state at the end of the AfD process, my vote is Delete. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "I find no mention of him in the list of 'references'" Yeah, he's definitely there if you work through the list of sources. If you're concerned about the state of the article, you should improve it rather than blow it up. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I stated in the initial nomination - he's definitely there in exactly two of the sources - and in both of them, he's mentioned only briefly, and he's not even close to being the subject of the article. Hence the nomination. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps can weigh in again now that its been revised?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. --Rubbish computer 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I'm going to admit that this kind of annoys me. I've cleaned up, sourced and NPOVd the article since it was nominated and you'd still prefer it be TNTd? Note that TNT means you think the subject is notable and is verifiable and you still want to delete the article? So what's the issue you are trying to fix?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The complete lack of verifiability in secondary sources. --Rubbish computer 17:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like some of the information cited is tenuous, and this article needs revision, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvester53 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for pinging me after changes. Admittedly the article is much improved, but I still find it a stretch to declare notability for this person. He mostly appears in articles about others. This may be a case of too soon, since many of his ventures are new and haven't yet had an impact. I'm changing my !vote to weak delete because I'm still not convinced that he's notable, yet. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment What do you think about rewriting this article? I am going to research some sources online. Silvester53 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it. --Rubbish computer 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now and restart later if better as I found nothing better than some links at Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister   talk  06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , there are no links to Books or Highbeam in the sourcing? I'm not sure what you mean by "browser". Did you post this on the right AFD entry?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were my own searches and browser is Google browser. SwisterTwister   talk  17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't see any real notability. Just a relatively young businessman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (1) no claim to notability (2) for lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. Better than most of the bios that come here, at he has a start on substantive coverage, but only that. --Bejnar (talk) 15:03, 6 October 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.