Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remo Mancini


 * 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   speedy keep. this is a content dispute. take to BLP noticeboard if necessary. DGG (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Remo Mancini

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The Remo Mancini page has been tagged for deletion

Please take 5 minutes to read the current Windsor Star newspaper articles contained in the links below. You will note that after reading the enclosed Windsor Star newspaper articles and comparing the information contained therein with the 'information' contained in the Remo Mancini article, that the author(s) of the Remo Mancini article is(are) attempting to cover up the fact that the subject individual is mired in controversy.

Given the well-documented controvery surrounding the subject individual, the Remo Mancini article is little more than mis-information and self-promotional in nature. It has not been cleaned up since the NPOV; or Non-notable tags have been placed on the article, and therefore the article itself should be deleted.

Please consider seconding the AfD nomination of the Remo Mancini article on the AfD page.

Windsor Star newspaper article links

It was the dumbest thing I ever heard

Development commission grills contrite Mancini

Mancini still earning $1,200-a-day as acting CEO

Resign now, Mancini urged

Full forensic audit essential

Development commission board gone for good

Local jobless number jumps to 12.6% Under Mancini's watch

WEWhistleBlower (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep and fix . It seems that we agree that he is notable but you want the article deleted anyway? That doesn't make sense. There may be a lot wrong with this article but if the subject is notable then we have to fix it. As I said on the talkpage: "The article claims that he was a cabinet minister in the regional government. If this is true (and can be demonstrated with references) then that would seem to cover notability OK. Unfortunately no references are provided to prove it.". Assuming we can get that referenced then the next step will be including all notable and reliable information about him in a balanced way and to remove any non-notable trivia (e.g. the stuff about being an gymnast, which might not merit inclusion) --DanielRigal (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Speedy keep. I have Googled him and this guy is notable both for his political and his business life. The regional cabinet post now has an RS reference. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Former Ontario cabinet minister is undoubtedly notable. AfD is not for clean-ups. The NPOV tag was only added on March 19th and I see no effort between that time and the AfD nomination to correct it. Make bold corrections, discuss problems on the article talk page, and improve the article. Double Blue  (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, snowball per DoubleBlue. MuffledThud (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: WEWhistleBlower added some coverage of the controversy above. I have rewritten it to explain it more simply and avoid giving undue prominence to a fairly minor controversy. I think I have got the balance more or less right. I think this addresses the issues expressed in the nomination so I have taken the NPOV tag off. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (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.