Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Cugno


 * 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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Can be recreated with sources. Also I will userfy or incubate this article on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pete Cugno

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Full disclosure: I created this myself, back in 2005 when Wikipedia's sourcing and notability rules were still basically being made up as we went along. By 2011 standards, however, it falls squarely in the unsourced BLP bucket, and having done a Google search I can attest that more solid reliable sources just ain't there. Delete, albeit without prejudice against future recreation if better sources can be found. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - You mean to imply that these notability rules that some people like to cite from memory as Absolute Truth about whether an article should or shouldn't be in Wikipedia weren't delivered from a burning bush to Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales 5,000 years ago? I am aghast... Carrite (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was a little more recent then that. Here's a link to the burning bush. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bearcat, I can appreciate you may not love your early Wikipedia work, but there's no reason to nuke this. Tag it for sources, leave it be. Carrite (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that I've already done enough searching to establish that there really aren't strong sources out there to be had not count for something? Does the fact that even the basic notability claim is quite weak by current standards not count for something? Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Inclusion standards may have morphed over time, but the article is the same as it ever was. Why lose it? Carrite (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found this and .  Are they the same Pete Cugno?  Argolin (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither one of those is a strong reliable source that talks about him; they just demonstrate that he exists, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, I'm trying to determine if the article is salvagable. I am aware WP:N is not WP:EXIST.  I've cited articles in the past with WP:EXIST references leading to a determination of WP:BAND # 5 (the record label dropped the band way back in the late 80's).  Argolin (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I have some sympathy for Carrite's position. To think about this from our reader's perspective, the existence of our article on this minor albeit apparently uncontroversial topic is a net benefit, whatever our rules have to say about it. However, where retention becomes difficult to justify is that in the absence of any substantial reliable coverage, it becomes impossible for us to verify even the basic content of the article and thus, crucially, defenceless against inaccurate or malicious additions. Unverifiable BLPs are unmaintainable BLPs, and this topic is not so important to cover that our duty to consider the welfare of the subject is overrided by reader interest.  Skomorokh   01:41, 28 April 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.