Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Italy

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Italy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Italy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Italy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cachewatch
Scan for Italy related AfDs

Scan for Italy related Prods
Scan for Italy related TfDs


Italy

Ross Cheever

Ross Cheever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi there. I came across this article via Special:Random and am quite alarmed by the fact it has (almost) no references. At first, I presumed it was just because of poor referencing and a classic case of deletion is not cleanup, but after scouring the internet I cannot find any significant coverage of him anywhere; all sources are either about his brother Eddie Cheever (who is reasonably notable), or are just entries in various racing driver sites (which is what the two refs are). I accidentally proposed deletion rather than sending to AfD so I'll fix that in a second. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC) JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Finding online SIGCOV of late 80s/early 90s drivers is often very difficult – this article needs more references – but as a multi race winner and title contender in Japanese F3000 (the pinnacle of single-seater racing in Asia, quite lucrative at the time) Ross' own notability shouldn't be in question. MSport1005 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per MSport1005's rationale. Finding web articles pre-early 2000s about motorsport, especially Japanese F3000 is really hard but to say that all sources are either entries or about his brother Eddie is a complete lie. [1], [2] are just two examples of sources I found, but I'd also argue that a 2-time grand prix winner and a Japanese F3 champion shouldn't even be nominated for deletion. [3],[4], [5].
Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 11:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Sportivo Giacinto Facchetti

Centro Sportivo Giacinto Facchetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without independent secondary sources or WP:SIGCOV, this Italian training ground fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

Battle of Thurii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.
This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).
I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Bonichi

Benedetta Bonichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST, as a teacher they do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The sources consist of blogs (Weird Fiction, and Trend Hunter), press releases or primary sources with a simple name check. None of these are reliable sources that provide significant coverage. An online BEFORE did not find anything of value, just social media posts and eBay. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any indication of notability, the claim that her work is in multiple permanent exhibitions is not supported by the source attached. If it were, this would change the picture. --hroest 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scannata

Scannata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, WP:NOTDICT, etc. This was originally obfuscated spam for a record company but the creator removed the spammy part after I applied G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Ariatti

Luca Ariatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases and short mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played for Atalanta, Fiorentina, Lecce and Chievo in the Serie A and has over 150 appearances in his career [10] - There's some sources on the Italian wiki too. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he played many times does not make him notable. Also, 80% of the sources about him on the Italian wiki do not open for me for some reason, so i dont know what to say about them WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo Palazzi

Osvaldo Palazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NSPORTS-failing LUGSTUB-a-like. No corresponding IT Wiki article.

The article makes repeated statements about Palazzi winning individual "medals" at the gymnastics tournaments in Turin and Paris. In reality no individual medals were awarded until 1922, with individual scores (not medals) only being recognised retrospectively after 1922. Scores conferred retrospectively years after the event, as a statistical artefact, cannot indicate notability, since they are not subject to the same assumption that they will have generated significant coverage that usually attends such awards. Palazzi's team won the team bronze in Paris and Turin, but Palazzi does not inherit the notability of his team per WP:NTEAM. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. There was a prominent Italian priest by the same name born in 1917. The only reference in the article is to a bare list that can be seen here. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen him as an Olympic medalist, not a world medalist. I will withdraw my vote. Svartner (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, a note that even if he met NOLY, per NSPORT the article is still required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. If someone has access to appropriate access to offline Italian sources without being able to find content, please let me know. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of WP:NGYMNAST is he supposed to meet? Significant coverage is not likely to exist simply as a result of retrospectively-awarded individual scores given decades after the event. No individual medal were awarded at this event. FOARP (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be your opinion, but you can’t claim that. Retrospective Olympic medalists have for instance received coverage. 95.98.65.177 (talk),
  • Delete - In fact he does not meet WP:NGYMNAST as that specifically refers to individual medals, not team ones, and despite what the page says, there was no pommel horse individual medal at that event. But, in any case, even if he did meet NGYMNAST, it is still required that the pagemust include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. We cannot get away with just saying such sources are likely to exist. Subject does not meet GNG as we do not have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Offline Italian language sources are likely to only include primary sources (newspaper reports, event programmes, certificates, records etc. are all primary sources). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, I didn't know that. Do you have a reliable source for your claim? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What claim? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he means the fact that no individual medals were awarded? Here on page 76. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed thanks! But I don’t see that Wikipedia is wrong at all the pages so I started searching. I see in this document their achievements are recognized retrospectively. And they are also included official in the overall medal table. So with this recognition you can’t state on the basis of your OR-reasoning that NGymnastics doesn’t apply as it is likely that there is written receiving recognition. There were also no medals awarded at the 1896 Summer Olympics, while retrospectively they are also medalists (counts also for the total medal table) and have received coverage because they received the recognition. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't at all likely that retrospectively-awarded scores, given decades after the event, in championships that were not considered "world championships" at the time, will have attracted any significant coverage at all. This may well be the reason why the World Championships aren't explicitly mentioned as "elite competitions" at WP:NGYMNAST, and shouldn't simply be assumed as being in there now in all cases.
    To see that this is so you need only read contemporaneous reports of these events (e.g., 1 2 3) - a single paragraph or two about the event as a whole in which individual events aren't mentioned at all (because everyone at the time thought it was just a team event, because that's what it was).
    It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time. The question is whether independent and reliable sources have gone along with this and given significant coverage to the subject on that basis - as far as I can see they haven't.
    That last point matters a lot - because WP:NSPORTS2022 says that sports bios have to have at least one instance of significant coverage in an independent reliable source. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your extensive reasoning, and I understand your opinion. However it is still it’s not possible with own research to claim that the person is not meeting NGYMNASTS. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing that WP:NGYMNAST is met requires positive research to show that it is met. Specifically: it requires you to show that the competition was an elite one equivalent to the modern events listed. The 1911 Turin tournament was not, not least because individual medals weren’t awarded at it. FOARP (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether or not Palazzi was awarded any individual medal at the time, can you point to specific language within WP:NGYMNAST that states that the individual medals won at a competition had to have been awarded at the time and not retroactively? I see no specific language within NP:GYMNAST that specifically deals with the issue of retroactively vs contemporaneously awarded medals. Also, in the website that you have leaned on heavily for your deletion nominations and edits, Gymnastics-History.com, very many uses and reproductions of original source materials therein show that some of these games were covered by a number of periodicals of the time, thereby further satisfying notability criteria. Starting with the very first of these games, according to Gymnastics-History.com, a quote-in-translation from the August 17, 1903 edition of Le Matin states "This is an innovation: for the first time we have seen elite gymnasts of various nationalities compete among themselves, chosen by each Federation from among its best men.". This helps establish the notability of the very first of these tournaments. Furthermore, elsewhere you have stated that, officially or not, that these were not truly Worldwide (not exclusively European) championships. However, the all-around champion at these games Joseph Martinez was French-Algerian, born in Algeria, which is in Africa, not Europe; additionally 1909 and 1913 All-Around Champion from these games Marco Torres was also French-Algerian, born in Algeria, Africa. You would know this if you had read the leader for the article of the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships where you, further on down the article, denied the worldwide nature of these games "as such" due merely to the technicality that, at the time, the FIG was still termed the FEG. Well, there's also the technicality of Martinez and Torres not being exclusively European - they were also African. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It says"Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition (see below)". No individual medals were awarded at the 1911 Turin tournament. Any award was only made decades later. And as has been pointed out numerous times, at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV is needed in any event. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing I think I need to point out about your reasoning is that when you say "It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time", you might be looking at the overall body of work made by the FIG, IOC, Wikipedians, and other sources and be confused by the seeming lack of consistency with how medals are awarded to countries contemporaneously and respectively. For the majority of the history of the sport of gymnastics at the level of the modern Olympic Games and the World Championships (1896-present), both CzechoSlovakia and Yugoslavia existed. Those countries' efforts mattered at the time 'and still matter as they are a part of history. As for the issue of events not existing at the time, my understanding is that even at the Olympic Games, whereas the sport of gymnastics is concerned, there was no separate, dedicated individual competition at all until the 1972 Olympics, but nevertheless, individual medals were awarded based upon the performances of the individual athletes at the team competition. By the logic you have consistently employed in your rationales for deletion, this would then call for the deletion of the articles for such giants in the sport as Larisa Latynina, who for many years had more total Olympic medals than any other athlete in the history of the Olympic games, and Vera Caslavska who is the only gymnast ever, male or female, to win Olympic Gold on every individual event. You have to look at the logic and rationales that you have employed consistently and as a bottom line and realize the implications that such rationales have for massive, widespread deletionism. As much of a minefield of seemingly contradictory policies and scattered nuances as Wikipedia seems to be at times, your consistent insistences, if applied uniformly, would cause the content of Wikipedia to end up being only a very small fraction of what it is now, at least whereas the world of sport is concerned.QuakerIlK (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not if they do not have IRS SIGCOV sourcing cited in the article. Articles are not deleted solely because the subject doesn't meet NGYMNAST, they are deleted because they fail the requirement for sportsperson articles. The only impact meeting NGYMNAST would have is if an IRS SIGCOV source was already identified, at which point the rebuttable presumption of further GNG-meeting coverage existing could potentially delay needing to demonstrate the subject actually does meet the "multiple sources" requirement for GNG. Instead of spending thousands of words trying to convince us that retroactive recognition "counts" for NGYM purposes, you should instead be looking for IRS SIGCOV sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NGYMNAST, as a subsidiary of NSPORT, requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article, which has not been satisfied. The entire point of the subcriteria, post-NSPORT2022, is to predict which athletes are/were most likely to have received GNG coverage. Recognition by independent sources, such as contemporary or retrospective media, is necessary, and empirically positive predictive power has been constrained to individual medalists. For that and other reasons, retroactive "awarding" of individual medals by non-independent bodies like FIG would not count for the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Delete is not the best option for a person meeting WP:GYMNAST and would redirecting to Italy at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in any case be a better solution. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - People have been canvased in to this discussion by this non-neutral notice at the Gymnastics project. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy/Paste from a separate AfD: I guess it's my turn. As others have noted, FOARP AfD'ed many articles targeted all under the same rationale which directly affected WikiProject Gymnastics. In an effort to have a centralized discussion, QuakerIlK included not just potential !keep votes, but those who had voted for deletion on the other conversations as well. It does not appear anyone new has since joined this AfD as a result. GauchoDude (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting a link saying that you want to vote keep on all of the discussions listed there, to the Gymnastics project, is a clear invitation to project members to go and vote keep in them. That's the essence of canvassing. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is moot anyway because WikiProject Gymnastics is a ghost town nowadays. The previous five small topics there go back to 2023 and the recent archives don't look much better. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuccio Rinaldis

Nuccio Rinaldis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sourcing is comprised of two brief mentions of this working audio engineer. Definitely accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion: Studio audio engineers like Nuccio Rinaldis, fulcrums of the discography in Italy with their constant work in pursuit of "vocal and instrumental sound perfection" (from the first to the last note down to mixing) in front of recording desks alongside proven successful artists with millions of records sold and million-dollar turns of business, have no media sponsors to pull from to retrieve sources. But this is not a culturally significant reason to propose deletion of the entry. The works done, widely historicized, are the equivalent of reliable sources. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's date added bibliography. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

  • BluRadio (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)

Redirects

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Italy&oldid=1289268229"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Italy, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.