Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fontana Amorosa

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 keep. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fontana Amorosa[edit]

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

Non-notable, nearly contextless, few reliable source avalible that give any more information, contested PROD Ronk01 talk, 03:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article "nearly contextless" when it says precisely what and where the subject is? In fact it's nothing but context. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that there is little or no opportunity for expansion, the geographical feature is non-notable and the creator has a history of creating these ultra stubs (take a look at his talkpage) There is no Featured Article potential, or even article potential here. Ronk01 talk, 14:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does appear to be a geographical bay - [1] - and it has received significant coverage from secondary sources that spans at least 2 centuries. [2][3][4] There's even some ancient archeological history here. [5][6] A perfectly valid stub. That the nom considers it "nearly contextless" is a reason to expand it, not delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Phil Bridger. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per my comments above. Ronk01 talk, 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Duplicate !vote (!voter is the nominator) --Cyclopia ^talk 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oakshade has established notability, so I'm rather surprised that the nominator persists in denying it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established through the sources provided by Oakshade. Geographic locations with some outside coverage (which there is plenty of in this case) can generally be kept as part of Wikipedia's gazetteer function anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:57, 11 July 2010 (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.