Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Poletto

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Poletto

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No real coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk)( 11:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep^Talk so nice of you to reach out and open a discussion on the Joe Poletto editing I did. I have some doubts as to why my sources/references are not good enough to validate the text and provide notability. (They are: People magazine, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Adweek, Sactown Magazine. New source to add to improve notability, readability from the LA Times - '97 - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-nov-17-fi-54712-story.html) I reviewed the requirements for notability again, and also have seen many CEO pages, which are the outlines for what I have done. Would it help if I changed the page to a Stub?EllenZoe (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EllenZoe: I would leave the sarcasm at the door. Its seen as a form of personal attack and some admins don't take kindly to it. I don't mind it. I reviewed the article and didn't think he was notable. The ref article mentioned is a name drop. I really don't see it here, and honestly want the article deleted. scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep^Talk I apologize if the tone of the writing implied any sarcasm. I was truly sincere in my wanting to learn what I did wrong with the Joe Poletto page. I didn't know, but now do, that using an article with just a name mention is not substantial enough of a source. I still would be interested in changing the page to a Stub if that would keep it from being deleted. EllenZoe (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. scope_creep^Talk 13:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EllenZoe: I was thinking when something is at Afc and it gets to this stage, the reviewing editor usually ask for WP:THREE. If you can find three references that will prove notability and put them close to the top and get rid of everything that can't be proved, it shows the editors here that the article is undergoing some improvement to make it notable. Hope that helpsscope_creep^Talk 13:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:Good morning Reworked and rewrote the entire Joe Poletto article, putting best sources up top, taking out the more adverorial text, I hope, and eliminated all the business mentions. I hope that helps keep the page now. If there is anything further you think I can do please let me know. EllenZoe (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st and 2nd ref's are name drops. 3rd is a name drop. 4th is a name drop. 5th is a name drop. It still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. There is no independent references that cover him in depth and are WP:SECONDARY refs. It is just no there. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Absent clear notability from significant coverage, we tend to delete producers. This guy looks run of the mill. Producers will get "name drops" in reviews, but that is merely basking on the musical artists' glows. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.