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. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Glauso (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)

Non-notable, self-promotion with multiple links to promotional sites Melcous (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, rather than sending this to AfD, would you consider nominating for speedy instead? Nördic Nightfury 08:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Nightfury yes it did seem borderline to me, but I thought there was at least a claim of significance in the publication editing that might have seen a speedy deletion nomination dismissed, hence going this way. Melcous (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, since it's already here, NN, let the process continue and be completed. Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete pernom. Selfpromotional, failing every category of WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTS.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly promotional article lacking the level of coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2017 (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.