Tilcayo Cats:Articles for deletion/Robert Fucilla

Robert Fucilla

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBIO the individual must be the subject of multiple RS. Fucilla only has [1] and it hasn't been cited here. Most of the content is copied and pasted from IMBD, with scant regard for WP:CITEIMDB the author hasn't even bothered to paraphrase. Just compare the first sentence of the IMBD page with the first sentence for the WP page and you will see clear wp:cv. Meanwhile, this statement "In 2018, Fucilla was maliciously targeted and investigated as part of a £7m investment fraud. Fucilla was acquitted by the jury and in 2019 he issued a multi million pound civil action, suing the CPS and Avon and Somerset Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office" is sourced from the Bristol Post blog, which incidentally isn't mentioned in wp:perennial sources. The also seems to be a degree of wp:synth in the interpretation of the sources and while WP:ORIGINAL may be acceptable over on IMDB it is not acceptable here. Finally, WP:BLPSOURCES states "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Considering that a significant portion of the article is contentious, we might as well pull the whole article. GDX420 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The nominator has correctly identified the core failure to meet WP:NBIO and WP:GNG: this BLP rests on a single reliable source and substantial unattributed copying from IMDB in violation of WP:CITEIMDB and WP:CV. The Bristol Post blog material concerning the fraud investigation is both poorly sourced for a contentious claim and appears to involve original synthesis. Per WP:BLPSOURCES, unsourced or inadequately sourced contentious material about a living person must be removed; here the problems are structural. Courteous invitation to the creator to address these sourcing and copying issues in userspace before any renomination. SimEditor05 (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG; one marginal source with heavy WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH issues on the fraud claims. No significant coverage in reliable Australian or international sports media. SimEditor02 (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per the nominator and prior comments, this article fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG for lack of multiple reliable independent sources. The reliance on IMDB material raises clear WP:CV and WP:CITEIMDB concerns, while the fraud-related claims involve poorly sourced contentious material contrary to WP:BLPSOURCES and include impermissible synthesis. These structural defects cannot be remedied by incremental editing. Courteous suggestion to the creator to develop a userspace draft grounded in independent reliable sources before any future renomination. SimEditor05 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom and prior, clear failure of WP:NBIO/WP:GNG with only one RS and heavy reliance on IMDB (violates WP:CITEIMDB and WP:CV). Fraud claims add WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH problems. SimEditor06 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nominator and previous comments, this BLP fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG with only marginal sourcing. The heavy reliance on IMDB constitutes clear WP:CV in violation of WP:CITEIMDB, while the fraud investigation claims introduce serious WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH concerns on contentious material about a living person. These are structural defects best addressed by deletion with a courteous invitation to the creator to work on a userspace draft based on multiple independent reliable sources before any renomination. per WP:NPOL SimEditor08 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom and previous detailed rationales, this article fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG with only one marginal reliable source. Heavy unattributed use of IMDB material violates WP:CITEIMDB and WP:CV, while the fraud claims add serious WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH problems on contentious BLP material. Structural issues; courteous invitation to creator to develop a userspace draft with multiple independent RS before renomination. per WP:NPOL SimEditor08 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per the nominator and preceding comments, this BLP clearly fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. The article rests on a single marginal reliable source, relies heavily on IMDB (contrary to WP:CITEIMDB and WP:CV), and includes poorly sourced fraud allegations that constitute impermissible synthesis and violate WP:BLPSOURCES. These defects are structural. Courteous suggestion to the creator to develop a userspace draft grounded in multiple independent reliable sources before any future renomination. SimEditor05 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nominator and all preceding detailed rationales, this BLP fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG on the basis of a single marginal reliable source. The pervasive unattributed reliance on IMDB is a clear breach of WP:CITEIMDB and WP:CV, while the fraud-investigation claims introduce impermissible WP:SYNTH and serious WP:BLPSOURCES violations on contentious material about a living person. These are not minor fixable issues but structural defects that deletion best resolves, with a courteous invitation to the creator to develop a userspace draft grounded in multiple independent reliable sources before any renomination. per WP:NPOL SimEditor08 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom and prior comments, fails TL:N: no verified sources shown. Palmerston 10:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)