Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Rafael Cimino (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

T. Rafael Cimino
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

First, this article has been deleted before:. It appears nothing has changed and it still fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Of the four secondary sources cited, two only mention Cimino in a single sentence and neither article is about him, while the other two are dead links; these are just trivial mentions. The other sources cited are his own websites and Amazon. Also the creator of this article might be Cimino himself of somebody close to him, as this editor has almost exclusively made edits about Cimino; this is a potential WP:COI violation. Baronet13 (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New Jersey.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The arguments made in the nomination are correct. The sources that exist are either about his books or about George Jung, not about him. Given the absence of in-depth coverage about him in secondary sources used as references in the article and given that I was unable to find anything more meaningful in a Google search, I believe that the notability standard is not met. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Created by an SPA, not quite as luridly false as the first version, but I'm sure that this will return if not prevented. The books are self-published, the 5-star reviews are almost certainly false and include some of the fictional elements of the first version of the article ("we worked together on x movie set" etc.). As one Goodreads 2-star reviewer says: "As it happens a number of those 5 star reviews are from strikingly good looking women." This all smacks of the most blatant of self-promotional scams. There's just nothing that can be trusted. Lamona (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No any proof of notability Kaaduunaa (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom + fails WP:GNG    Devoke  water  10:01, 4 January 2023 (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.