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) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Yuri Cataldo

Yuri Cataldo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP;PROF. The references are either from his own college or the local newspapers that will publish anything at all about local people--and none of them are substantial. He operates a bottled water company, & has taken care that it gets some publicity, but those are just PR. He created costume designs for a few important films, but none of his designs have won any prizes of their own. He has no significant academic works, and according to WP:PROF, the notability of faculty in the creative arts are judged by the criteria for those arts--and he does not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete largely per nom. What coverage I have been able to find seems to come from sources that while not necessarily doubtful in their veracity, are compromised either by some tangible connection to the subject, or by being purely local. We need more than this to meet GNG. I would also note that there is more than slight whiff of promotionalism here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete the argument for keeping would seem to rely on the "award winning" discussed. However, seeing the press release from the award organization, Cataldo is not mentioned; this is an award that goes to the product, and doesn't automatically tie to an individual (unlike, say, how a producer gets a Best Picture Oscar or an author gets a major book award. (The article curiously both overstates how it was described and understates it simultaneously; when it says it was the third best water in the world in 2015, it's using a 2013 source, the year it took the bronze. In 2015, it took the gold, so it was the best... but only the best purified water, and only among those entered.) The TV source reeks of churnalism. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC) And just to back up what I say about the award not necessarily representing the world's best: "What is surprising however is how few bottlers are actually involved in the competition." -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:38, 30 September 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.