Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Fardone

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. Vanity press publication, plus a lot of self-promotion, does not equal notability. Pastordavid (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enzo Fardone

Enzo Fardone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not verifiable by third party sources and hence not notable. Google (21 ghits) doesn't bring up anything interesting. MER-C 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The information in the article is verifiable as far as I can ascertain. He took legal action against Dan Brown and Transworld over The Da Vinci Code, which was reported in Australia by several News Limited newspapers: Author launches 'Code' lawsuit and I wrote Da Vinci Code original (I don't know why these references do not seem to appear in your search). --Canley (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as currently insufficiently notable (there are still only 108 Ghits). Reading those references, it doesn't look as if he actually took legal action. The fuller one, I wrote Da Vinci Code original, says he sent a solicitor's letter in 2006 and planned to take it further. It's 2008 now, and nothing else has appeared in the news, so we can conclude no lawsuit has happened yet. Starburst Publishing is, incidentally, an author-subsidised publisher [1] which considerably reduces the notability of the book, and we wouldn't want this non-news being used to sucker Wikipedia effectively into promoting it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It also appears that he might have created or edited his own page. --Sharkface217 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing that up. It's not a reason to delete, but it is worth noting. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Made major news, per Canley. Yes, there aren't 10000000 ghits (WP:GHITS), but he is notable, possibly for making a bit of a fool of himself. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Made major news

Can we justify the notability of that? Regional news, professing forthcoming litigation that never happened. And of course we might diss the Google test, but only 100 or so hits is, as you say, worth noting. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Anybody can file suit against anybody else at any time for any reason. Notability isn't based on that. Also, he can't be notable for not doing something--i.e., for not writing The DaVinci Code. You can only be notable for doing something, not for not doing something. Qworty (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've looked into this matter further and three things appear to be true: 1) There was never a lawsuit, just a letter sent by a lawyer, 2) The article was indeed written by the subject, and 3) his "publisher" is indeed a vanity press. We're getting very close to WP:HOAX here. Clearly, we cannot allow an individual to arrange for a lawyer to send a letter, to arrange for a book to be vanity published, and then to show up here to write an article about himself. This thing is a million miles away from notability of any kind. Qworty (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

sent by a lawyer ...

... called Enzo Anthony Fardone [2] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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.