Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Abbinanti

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. Kurykh 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Abbinanti

insufficient/hopelessly unclear notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is still in its infancy and not great but the justifcation presented here for deletion is specifically notability. The number of relevant hits that you get from google (using search strings "Robert Abbinanti" "boxer") suggests he is notable. Ros0709 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Top links are obscure in notability at best. MY name appears alot if you search right, and I'm not notable at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evaluating links: http://www.ipsn.org/damico.html: brief mention as local mob member and former amateur boxer. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evaluating links: http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=List_of_male_boxers: seems to be a mirror of List_of_male_boxers. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evaluating links: http://pipl.com/directory/people/Robert/Abbinanti: only links to other obscure listings. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment on comment. Name/Occupation is hardly gaming Google. I'm all for deleting bios of people no-one's ever heard of and particularly those which are vanity pages but it looks like this name is all over the internet. And indeed, the lack of information at those links that you highlight means people are more likely to come to WP to slate their curiosity - let's give them the information. Ros0709 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: And yet, there seems to be little to NO information on his notability... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his career as an amateur boxer does not appear to have attracted sufficient notice to generate any coverage. His other activities are hinted at, but there is no coverage actually about him. Possibly a minor mob figure. But essentially, there are no reliable sources upon which to build an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article professes to be about an amateur boxer, thus failing WP:BIO on inherent notability, and presents no reliable sources for his notability, thus failing the primary notability criterion. He's got a page on the boxing wiki, edit that one. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That the article might still be in its infancy is one thing, but I'm curious as to how all the time in the world will conflate a local amateur boxer into some measure of notability. Beyond that, the paragraph on the subject's alleged mob ties is vaguely written and almost entirely unconnected with him, and WP:BLP demands a great deal more than a single link mentioning the subject's name in a twelve-year old appeals decision (concerning someone else, as to that) before declaring him a Mafioso. What elements of WP:BIO do any proponents of the article claim this fellow meets? RGTraynor 07:32, 19 January 2008 (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.