Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remo Camerota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remo Camerota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced and abysmally written article. Could not find more sources for notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
site times out. ? Unknown
No No No list of client projects, passing mention No
Yes Yes dead link ? Unknown
ded link ? Unknown
dead link ? Unknown
dead link ? Unknown
dead link ? Unknown
Yes Yes dead link ? Unknown
dead link ? Unknown
~ ~ no concessous on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for Boing Boing No listing of book with text. No opinion given No
~ ~ no concessous on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for Boing Boing No dead link No
dead link ? Unknown
Melbourne independent filmmakers ~ CV posted on this site. Unclear if the info has been vetted ? Unknown
I do not care to click on site with warning I do not care to click on site with warning ? Unknown
Yes Yes No listing for "Speaking in Tongues" no mention of Remo Camerota No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete Article is almost entirely unsourced to anything, and I don't see any of the listed potential references as reliable, independent and significant coverage, just at best the briefest mentions in routine promotion. In addition to what is described by WomenArtistUpdates' source assessment table, the four "markbattypublisher.com" references are the web site of someone who published this person's work, so definitely promotional and not independent. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per source assessment and additional search. WP:GNG is not established Uncountableinfinity (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2025 (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.