Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Prati


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard Prati

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Going through the 20 sources provided in this article will leave you with almost no information about the subject other than that they have been the executive of investment firms and that they are quoted for investment advice. I wasn't able to find anything better in an internet search.

Additionally, this article was moved to draft by MER-C with the message Article created by blocked sockpuppeteer that has hallmarks of covert advertising. Needs review at WP:AFC. only for it to be moved back to mainspace 10 days later by a brand new account. signed,Rosguill talk 23:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this spam, and salt because the spammers show no signs of giving up easily. MER-C 10:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial promo piece. Wikipedia is not a Florida newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and as failing the significant coverage test. The sources are shallow (a mere listing), local, or unreliable (prwire, businesswire). Bearian (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt given lack of RS and previous deletions. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Not even borderline. Protect and salt title "Richard Prati (businessman)" as well; we have a very determined sock here. Britishfinance (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2019 (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.