Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Rismondo

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. Missvain (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Rismondo[edit]

[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. The article makes no claim of notability. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The encyclopedia entry is a tertiary source and does not count toward notability. ANYBIO doesn't even state the subject is presumed notable but simply they are likely to be notable, so it is the weakest claim possible without additional evidence/sources. The submarine naming does however show along with the ANYBIO bio dict entry that there is probably more. I can't find more, but will change to weak keep based on the probability. // Timothy :: talk 07:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another article about someone with no obvious claim to fame. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO based on the comments below. Much of this could have been avoided had the article writer clearly stated the subject's claim to notability in the first sentence; "an Austrian-born Italian irredentist and decorated military volunteer" does not cut it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation to the encyclopedia was there from the moment of creation, so the way this could have been avoided is if all of the people who offered "delete" opinions actually based their comments on evidence rather than guesswork. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the citation to the Treccani was not apparent to me; I had never come across it before. I accept your criticism, but my advice to article creators remains that a concise statement of notability (MOS:LEADSENTENCE) will save an article from PROD and AfD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an article on the Enciclopedia Treccani, the most important Italian encyclopedia. This submarine was named after him.--Alienautic (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails in passing WP:SOLDIER Pilean (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly passes WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:RS since he has an entry in Treccani.--Alienautic (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Kolma8 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3 - "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." Treccani is the Italian national encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just a quick scan through the books and academic papers linked in the nomination shows that the subject has been regarded by many Italians as a national hero, and that he has had at least a school, a street and two submarines named after him, and of course there's the entry in Treccani. No, he's not the latest meme trending on social media sites, but is that the standard by which we should judge whether a topic is encyclopedic? Do we aspire to cover fewer topics than paper encyclopedias? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry in Treccani and other evidence, like a submarine and streets named after him in many Italian cities (Ancona, Bologna, Milan, Padova, Torino etc., even in Rome) are inclusion qualifications. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stub needs a lot of work, but based on what I read here, he easily passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (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.