Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Italy

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Italy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Italian Wikipedians' Notice Board

Scan for Italy related AfDs

Scan for Italy related Prods
Scan for Italy related TfDs

Italy

Judith of Babenberg

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

Nothing is known about her beyond genealogy. Historians do not discuss her. That she was born to one powerful man, married to another, and mother of a few others is not grounds for a standalone article (WP:NOTINHERITED). Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have WP:SIGCOV in the sources provided. It is not uncommon for medieval noblewomen or even noblemen that so few details of their lives are preserved, and this article is at least full of WP:RS. The grandfather of her husband, William IV, Marquis of Montferrat, has fewer sources, and all his predecessors are in a similar state of poor sourcing that is significantly worse than Judith of Babenberg. Of course we need to draw the line somewhere, but I think Judith is not at the top of the list. NLeeuw (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw, the sources provided merely mention her existence. How does that count as "significant coverage"? Surtsicna (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Austria, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, Duke of Parma

AND Joseph, Duke of Parma

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

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma (deleted on 12 June 2024)
Henry, Duke of Parma and Joseph, Duke of Parma have both been WP:UNSOURCED since creation in 2007. I found no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS (Google Scholar, Google Books, other language versions of Wikipedia), just a few monarchist blogs that don't cite sources either, meaning these articles don't pass WP:GNG.
The purpose of these two articles is quite evidently to only serve as links (literally, in the text, the infobox, the ahnentafel, the See also section, the succession footer, the navbox, the OTHER navbox, and the 14 or so categories, not to mention all the 'What links here', including House of Bourbon-Parma#Titular dukes of Parma (since 1859)) in an unbroken chain of Pretenders to the throne of Parma (deleted on 12 June 2024), which only interests legitimists who want to restore the House of Bourbon-Parma.

Henry and Joseph themselves are not seen as notable persons who had culturally impactful lives; in fact, the creator of both pages called them mentally retarded (which later editors changed to had an intellectual disability), adding However, Enrico continued to be considered by legitimists as Henry of Parma. and although Giuseppe continued to be considered by monarchists as Joseph I of Parma. So perhaps neither man even understood the life they were living, nor the title in pretence they inherited, let alone that the two brothers actively claimed the title for themselves; a regent did so on behalf of them. (If RS said anything about their disability, it might have been culturally relevant, but they don't; there are none). But the articles only say something negative about it, and then proceed to say legitimists/monarchists still regarded them as the rightful Dukes of Parma. The end.

You know the drill: this violates WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTINHERITED, and a bunch of other policies and guidelines I could mention. Quite frankly, I think we're doing Henry and Joseph a posthumous disservice by making their stub "biographies" dumping grounds for pretender succession links and templates that only a fringe monarchist interest group gets excited about. NLeeuw (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mccapra and TompaDompa: FYI, this is a follow-up to the discussion we had almost exactly 1 year ago. NLeeuw (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moro Alhassan

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

24 professional appearances at Serie B and Serie C level before disappearing from the sport. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Ghana, and Italy. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyal S. Sunga

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

I don't know that this person is notable. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one article is not primary. He also doesn't have too many academic citations in Google Scholar.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Pantaleone, Chamois

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

Not seeing a WP:GNG pass for this small Italian church. The article's only sources are a local tourism website and a history on the comune's website, which would be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Didn't find anything else in my WP:BEFORE search, although if independent, secondary WP:SIGCOV is found please ping me. A BLAR was contested so seeking consensus for a redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Aosta or a similarly appropriate target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Christianity, and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Chamois, Aosta Valley, where the content would serve a useful purpose. ~~Nom is being too picky in terms of sourcing IMO.~~ Ingratis (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC) I put that very badly. What I was getting at was that although the sourcing is inadequate for a standalone article, as nom says, it should be enough for a redirect to the comune article to support a single sentence to the effect that the parish church, of which there is already a picture, is dedicated to San Pantaleone (the same could be supported from other sources). I don't see much point in redirecting to the diocese article, since the parish is not mentioned there. Ingratis (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I am OK with a merge to your proposed target as well and I agree that the sources are valid for such a purpose. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief para based on a different source and don't see any harm in adding a little information from the comune website - after all, the comune dosn't run the church. 08:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Merge, especially since, as an article it should be renamed "Saint Pantaleon parish church" as quoted by the English version of the main source. --Simoncik84 (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an established convention - albeit a rather silly one IMO for many reasons, including that apart from anything else it doesn't follow the Italian convention - for names of Italian churches, which the present article follows. Ingratis (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this church, it should bear both names, since it is located in a region that is officially bilingual. Furthermore, it's worth noting that "San Pantaleone", just like "Saint Pantaléon" in French, is merely the name of the patron saint of the church — not the name of the church itself. --Simoncik84 (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - no particular opinion. Point 2 - thanks for stating the obvious, which I'd agree with; you're more than welcome to argue about it with the supporters of the long-standing naming convention. Since the article seems unlikely to remain as a standalone, however, it scarcely matters. Ingratis (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Di Fazio

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. Appears to be notable for only one event (the arrest of someone who is notable). ash (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have an analysis of above additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the Catalan and Italian articles also have vague sourcing, only listing a page or a book, with no isbn or any sort of online listing. I wouldn't count them as either RS or non-RS... They just look like the "good enough" sourcing that was used back in the early days of Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough sourcing to keep this... The vague sources used don't really give any indication of how you'd even locate them, if they're in a book, a magazine, or anything else. One of those old Wiki articles that was "good enough" 20 yrs ago and just looks sad these days. I don't even think sending this to draft would help. I can't find sources that talk about this event... We just don't have enough fo show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe not a hoax, but nothing has emerged to suggest that this battle is notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

Italy

Judith of Babenberg

Henry, Duke of Parma

Moro Alhassan

Lyal S. Sunga

San Pantaleone, Chamois

Girolamo Di Fazio

Battle of Thurii

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates