Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Imperato (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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Imperato

This article was deleted in early 2006 and then recreated in late 2006. There's been a notability tag on it for more than half a year. I nominated it for speedy deletion through A7 due to the prior deletion, that was contested, so I decided it would be more expedient to go through the standard deletion route. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider someone who is a Papal Knight and a Knight of Malta notable, but I'm not sure I should trust the Irregular Times. Is this news source just biased or utter codswollop like The Onion?[1] =-Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and those 'facts' that could confer notability are not from (word added for clarity) reliable sources. --Ged UK (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Facts are never reliable sources. Facts are facts (or fabricated truths). Assuming that is a grammatical mishap, why do you think the source is not reliable? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry, my earlier comment was missing a 'from'. I'm not sure the Irregular Times is a reliable source either. If it isn't then this guy isn't notable. If it is, then probably he is, but considering that comments within that IT article throw dispute on the validity of that order, I find that unlikely. --Ged UK (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete papal knights of knights of malta may get a pass into heaven, but not a pass into notability. Little more notable than the average parish priest, who still has to pass WP:BIO - even if these knighthoods are verified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I notice his presidential bid did generate notable news coverage. I would check libertarian publications for articles on him that might provide notability before deleting this. Ancemy (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep These do seem like realiable sources, and he did get some coverage, even it he's not exactly Ross Perot. 7triton7 (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2009 (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.