Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo De Feo


 * 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Massimo De Feo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is quite limited, consisting of minor quotations from the subject, short passing mentions and name checks. The article is reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. North America1000 15:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple instatances of coverage outside of LDS published sources including multiple mentions in Toronto et al's seminal work on the LDS Church in Italy. How the nominator has classed this top scholarly work widely recognized as one of the best works on religious change in Italy among other things as a primary source is hard to understand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you post some of those sources here in the discussion? I performed WP:BEFORE searches prior to nominating this for deletion, but not finding significant coverage in independent sources. For example, this source in the article has quotations from the subject (e.g. "according to local Rome Stake President Massimo De Feo, who says", "According to De Feo", "According to Massimo De Feo", "De Feo said"), but provides no biographical information about the subject. Quotations from a subject about an LDS temple does not extend to then make that person notable. North America1000 11:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond the totally ignored scholarly coverage provided in the article we have this Deseret News faith section, meant to broadly cover religion, with significant mention of Feo. Here is another DN news article with mention of Feo . We get his mention as the main point man on the Rome Italy Temple in article after article such as this one [www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/29/new-mormon-temple-in-rome-fuels-polemics/].John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Source review: The Mormons in the Piazza: History of The Latter-day Saints in Italy source in the article is not able to be previewed, as I tried to do so here, but there's no "search inside this book" option. So, that source lists page 505 as having content about the subject. So, even if the entire page is only about the subject, that's only one source. The rest so far are all primary or provide only passing mentions, quotations, the subject acting as a spokesperson, and name checks. Below is a synopsis of the sources presented in the comment directly above.
 * – Just about all quotations from the subject . There are two very short sentences in this article about the subject that are not quotations. Not significant coverage; essentially a primary source per being mostly quotations.
 * – Consists entirely of a short quotation from the subject. This is primary, and also is not significant coverage.
 * [www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/29/new-mormon-temple-in-rome-fuels-polemics/] – Another passing mention of the subject acting as a spokesperson . No biographical content about the subject here, primary, not significant coverage.
 * See also: WP:SPIP:
 * The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
 * – North America1000 06:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more peoples' opinions here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  10:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable person, per sources and User:Johnpacklambert. --Checco (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Not seeing how primary sources, passing mentions, quotations from the subject (which is primary) and name checks makes a subject notable per Wikipedia's standards of notability. Fact is, said sources are not even usable to establish notability. North America1000 05:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous relists failed due to the spam-blacklist

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient coverage, some INDEPTH, some non-trivial mentions that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Faint two-sentence mentions, quotations from the subject (entirely primary) and a source from the unreliable, Wikipedia-blacklisted Breitbart News, which even  prevented this discussion from being relisted ! (See Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources for more information). Sorry, but wow, is this all it takes to qualify notability nowadays? I still haven't seen two sources that provide independent, reliable and significant coverage, so it's a strain for me to somehow consider the subject notable per Wikipedia's standards. Per actual notability and source guidelines, none of these sources establish notability. North America1000 20:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly article can be improved, true of most BLP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Improving an article with passing mentions does not qualify notability, which is the basis of this deletion nomination. I'm also a bit concerned that nobody has bothered to address my source review above, like all that's necessary to qualify notability is to just say, "notable per sources", even if all of the sources actually do not qualify notability at all per our guidelines (fleeting, two sentence mentions, unreliable sources, etc.) My source review is quite objective, so why not address it? Sorry, but hopefully whoever closes this discussion won't base it upon a simple !vote count, and will at least consider the overall strengths of the arguments. That is, unless I've got it all wrong, right? Nope, still haven't seen two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, not even two. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on Wikipedia. North America1000 21:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I myself am actually surprised I'm !voting delete; usually it's the opposite for me, I !vote keep when everyone else says to delete. However, I'm struggling to see how this meets WP:GNG. Of the sources John provided, the first seems okay, but that's just one source. The second does not provide independent, significant coverage, and the third is completely unreliable. A Google search doesn't provide anything else that's reliable, secondary, and significant coverage. It's an interesting article, but I disagree with what the the editors said above about having sufficient in-depth coverage.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:14, 24 October 2018 (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.