Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Padovan

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Padovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete. WP:BLP, sourced only to a WordPress blog and the subject's own primary source website about himself with no reliable source coverage shown at all, of a child actor known for supporting roles in a couple of musicals. Simply being a working actor is not an automatic WP:NACTOR pass in and of itself, in the absence of reliable source coverage about the actor -- and we have a rule that because of personal privacy concerns and the potential for a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have to be especially strict about the notability of minors. So there simply has to be quite a bit more to say than "he exists", and quite a bit more reliable sourcing to base it on, before a Wikipedia article about him becomes appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For people under 18 we should proteect their privacy, even if they or their operatives do not. However this would not pass normal GNG. The two roles are hardly significant, and "multiple" usually means more than 2. The sources are no where near reliable, 3rd party sources, so it is no where near passing GNG. He may become a notable actor, but a lot of child actors in small roles remain such, and his roles are not of a level to justify the article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The references presented do not constitute "significant coverage" (specified in WP:GNG), nor are the reliable sources (under WP:RS). --♫CheChe♫ talk 19:01, 23 October 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.