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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Paul Fiorentino[edit]

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

Not notable artist. Guy zaky (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Artist" is inaccurate; he appears to be primarily a poet. Anyway, I'm seeing enough small-press reviews of his books, interviews with him, and coverage of awards he has won or been shortlisted for, that I think he may pass WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep youngish poet who, as Eppstein says, can be sourced and appears to be taken seriously in literary circles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely some writing tone and sourcing problems here — it was created at a time when our sourcing requirements were very different than they are now, and old articles admittedly haven't always kept up with the evolution in those standards — but for that very reason, when we run across an article in that camp, we have to take extra care to run a sourcing check, to determine whether the article is fixable or not, WP:BEFORE we rush the article out the door. In ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" database, I get 148 hits from daily newspapers not limited to Montreal, which means that there is enough coverage and notability to get this back up to contemporary WP:GNG standards. And considering the nominator's edit history — almost completely blanking Paul Cargnello as an IP, getting reverted almost instantly, then immediately registering a brand new username so they could reblank it and list it for deletion even though its problems turned out to be completely fixable, and then going straight for this — I strongly suspect that this has less to do with any principled concern for Wikipedia's rules and more to do with personal animus against Cargnello and Fiorentino for some reason that's none of Wikipedia's concern. The problems here are repairable. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2016 (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.