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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Monti (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No notability as an individual or as a professional lawyer. In that context fails WP:CORPDEPTH and as an individual fails WP:ANYBIO criteria. Self publicist - this is an autobiography and almost certainly an advertisement - cf WP:ARTSPAM.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence at all of notability. All of the references suffer from at least one of the following problems (and some of them more than one): Dead link; link to search page showing the result No document found for the search "andrea monti" (Nessun documento trovato per la ricerca "andrea monti"); link to page not mentioning Andrea Monti, though mentioning something related to something mentioned in the article; link to a page with only a passing mention of Monti; link to a list in which Monti or one of his works appears; work by rather than about him (or even work by someone else which he has translated); link to an article on Wikipedia. Not a single one of them could by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as significant coverage about him in a reliable source independent of him. A Google search produces www.andreamonti.net, Wikipedia, linkedin, facebook, etc etc. Also, after filtering out Google hits which are about other people of the same name, such as an Argentinian tango dancer, and a newspaper editor, we are left with not a great deal on this Andrea Monti. In short, there is no evidence at all of coming anywhere near satisfying English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Self-written, and essentially self-promotion. (Note: PROD contested by Andrea Monti with no edit summary.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All, I've checked the issues you mention and I can say that:

• dead link: correct. The problem lies in the fact that IlSole24's search engine need to be given a time frame to produce results. The link provides only recent results. Is it acceptable to link to single entries?
• link not mentioning "Monti": this is related to the "Telecom Sismi scandal". The link has been included to let people have information about the issue. No problem in deleting. The link to Paul Ludlow's book is related to support the claim about ALCEI
• link to page with a passing mention: this link - coming from a daily newspaper - is a supporting evidence for a statement included in the page. Is there an alternative I can follow to fix the problem?
• link to a list in which Monti or one of his works appears: this is the reference to a scientifc paper. Is there a different way to support the statement? Would it be acceptable to link to the full text?
• work by rather than about him: I do translate English books into Italian, so - as happens with other bios of people that do things like that - I just mentioned it.
• the "Mr. Nobody" issue: true, there are a lot of unrelated entry in Google, but this - IMHO - is not a mean to infer that the page should be deleted.

Following your suggestion I tried to edit the page to see if might become acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreamonti (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No coverage. (There's a old saying: The lawyer who presses his own suit has a fool for a drycleaner. No wait... The lawyer who writes his own Wikipedia article has a fool for a publicist.) EEng (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Little to no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys, but I'll get more information. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also contacted a notable attorney who works in the same field, and is a Wikipedian, but he's never heard of Monti, but promised to get back to me if he can help edit the article. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (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.