Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Antinori (Attorney, Author)


 * 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 both. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul Antinori (Attorney, Author)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable author and book; neither the author nor the book has significant coverage in reliable sources. For the author, the references and google searches I did turn up trivial references with little depth. For the book, there isn't any significant reviews in reliable sources I would expect of a notable book, per WP:GNG. Both articles also eggregiously violate WP:COATRACK as they serve primarily to push the opinion that the author expounds upon in his book; there are WP:COI issues as the sole major editor to either article is likely either the author themselves or a person working for the author to promote the author's opinion. Jayron  32  17:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for Paul Antinori. As an author, I can find no substantiation for notability.  However, he was elected as a State Attorney, and in this role, he did receive coverage, some which is noted in the article.  There's more., .  He also contested a congressional seat , but lost.  There's also plenty of biographical material in this story. As for the book, redirect to the article on Paul Antinori.  The book isn't notable but can be covered lightly in the article.  - Whpq (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per my standards and Whpq. He was state's (district) attorney, he tried notable cases and appeals, and he ran for Congress (although that alone is not to make him notable). His advocacy of minor amendments to the US Constitution are not notable, so there is no need for a separate article about his book, which should be merged. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not convinced that a county states attorney is intrinsically notable, and that very weak claim to fame is being used as a coattrack for the constitutional section which is self-published and clearly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Being a state attorney, all by itself, probably does not meet WP:POLITICIAN with respect to holding a state level office as the jurisdiction is at the county level (I think). However, as an elected official, in his capacity as state attorney, he did gain press coverage as shown in the links above.  Note that this term as a state attorney comes well before the advent of the Internet, so there's likely very many more sources offline that cover him.  So I believe that any issue of intrinsic notability is really irrelevant due to newspaper coverage.  I (and I believe Bearian) agree that his books are not notable.  However, the coatrack aspect of the biography can be dealt with through normal editting to trim that back. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that coverage, but as I recollect it is the sort of coverage that anyone in such a position is almost certain to get. And Bearian, I would presume just the opposite: that he did not prosecute notable cases or appeals, because if they were notable, we would be able to refer back to him from the articles which we could write on those cases. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, let me be clear that I think being state's attorney is only one factor for notability, and does not create automatic notability per POLITICIAN. I assumed good faith that the claims in the article can be sourced.  Of course, my opinion is not policy, and if the facts can't be verified, then I would go along with deletion. I, too, am concerned that the facts are being used as a COATRACK. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note, a State Attorney has statewide jurisdiction. They're basically the State's "CLO" (Chief Legal Officer) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what the district website says. He functioned as the prosecutor of a small section of the state of Florida. Mangoe (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The State Attorney is an elected county level position. It is not a statewide office. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misread; I was thinking the State Attorney-General, not a State Attorney. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete his State Attorney position seems to be being used as a COATRACK for an article on constitutional reform. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The coatracking can be dealth with through editting. What is you opinion on notability? -- Whpq (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no notability for the non-COATRACK material. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A wholly promotional article. I don't think there would be enough left to constitute an article after removing the promotion, and I would therefore think it might even be liable to G11. And I agree that the comment that he holds a statewide office is not correct.     DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both the person and the book. He does not appear to have held statewide office, and the cases he prosecuted do not add to his notability even though the cases themselves may have been reported on. I agree with the comments above that both of these articles appear to be merely coatracks to promote Antinori's proposal for a constitutional convention (an idea which gets proposed all the time by many people for many reasons; there does not appear to be anything particularly notable about his proposal). The two articles were created by the same editor. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (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.