Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Italy

WP:DSITL
WP:DSITALY

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Italy.

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[edit]

List of Serie A broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. No context to assert notability. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Italy. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: At the similar AfD for Copa Sudamericana broadcasters, you !voted Redirect rather than Delete. Do you think a redirect isn't a viable alternative to deletion in this case? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to a redirect. Giant Snowman 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serie A#Television rights (a section which could be renamed to "Media coverage"). Absent media coverage about the list as a topic, I agree that I don't think this is a list within Wikipedia's scope that is therefore worth preserving per WP:NOT, but the topic does merit some encyclopedic coverage in the context of Serie A, and it is a reasonable redirect as an alternative to deletion. I do not think there is anything worth merging, though preserving the page history allows an interested editor to do so if they disagree. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Wong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable baseball career with no statistics, and no coverage outside playing city (Turin). 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 19:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, Italy, and Cuba. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the obituaries were published by several news outlets: TorinoToday, Repubblica, RaiNews, La Stampa, Corriere. It seems enough to justify GNG, but I found very little pre-death coverage. Broc (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources above basically parrot each other in eulogizing him and mentioning that a relative plays for the Texas Rangers. There's nothing about Wong's career while he never played in a top-flight league. It's not enough to even establish WP:SPORTCRIT. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

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

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gransito Movie Awards 2008[edit]

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

Perpetually unreferenced article lacks coverage, fails WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it lacks the same coverage:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Internet, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the award itself is not notable, neither would a listing of awardees per year. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Why? I Ask it's the award which is obscure and not notable (eg. no idea if it still exists, and if not when it was cancelled). Cavarrone 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website was last up in 2009[1], after which it was seemingly usurped. It appears to have been the only source (as an external link)[2], likely indicating self-promotion. No reliable, independent sources can be found on the topic, and thus it should not have a separate article (which was deleted 2017). These sub-articles should have gone with it. Οἶδα (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Vitale[edit]

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

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the subject has had an ordinary career, with no indication of encyclopedic notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tasca (professor)[edit]

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

Previously deleted and salted as Paolo Tasca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Computing, Italy, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete ~~Delete~~ -- I don't have access to the deleted versions of the article, but since it has been deleted and salted, the level of improvement to notability needs to be higher than typical to keep, and I don't see a WP:PROF pass here that would warrant it. But UCL is a significant university, so I don't want to be too hasty -- salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to weak delete by Mikejisuzu's arguments, but nothing warrants speedy keep by a long shot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that he's actually only an associate professor, not a full professor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- Paolo Tasca is much more notable now in 2024, with multiple publications and third-party media references. Right now Tasca has several citations in triple digits. I'd argue that notability itself has increased significantly since the last deletion.

Given the higher requirement for notability, Tasca should have at least one well-cited multiple author work and others in double digits. From a quick look at Google Scholar, he has 6 works in triple-digit citations and more than 20 with double-digit citations. It looks like he has also grown in notability from a media perspective at least regards to reliable sources such as Euronews, and Project Syndicate. [3] As a result, Tasca clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability criteria. Mikejisuzu (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever gave you the idea that that is enough citations in the very highly-cited field of computer science? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start the title is a lie, as he's an associate professor, not a professor. Why do people involved with blockchain always seem to lie like this? Exaggeration is a sign of immaturity, not strength. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability, encyclopedic relevance, academic publications, positions, and so on - In response to Phil's and Necrothesp's comments: Paolo Tasca's work is multidisciplinary, and he also does a lot of work in economics. Please check Google Scholar for his many dozens of academic publications. This is certainly enough to establish basic notability. (Google Scholar)

He also has an ORCID profile where dozens of published works are listed. (ORCID)

And if that's not enough, there's an official UCL profile as well with additional information. (UCL page) UCL is one of the top universities in the UK and Europe, equivalent to an Ivy League-type institution. We can't just delete UCL, or Yale, professors with many dozens of publications unless we can demonstrate solid reasons for why they absolutely don't fit into the scope of this online encyclopedia. This is definitely a serious academic, not some self-promoting "motivational speaker" or "life coach."

There are plenty of academics out there who used to be non-notable, but have since become much more notable due to their recent extensive publications, research, and presentations. Tasca would certainly be one of them. Simply having a previous deletion or two should not prevent the subject from being permanently barred from eventually having a Wikipedia article even after the subject has eventually attained sufficient notability. I understand that the nominator thinks that Tasca had been deleted before and hence would like to reconsider whether or not the article should remain deleted. Nevertheless, by now, I strongly believe that his notability and encyclopedic relevance has greatly increased, and he is certainly worth including on Wikipedia now. This article is now certainly useful and relevant for encyclopedia readers, which is what Wikipedia is meant for.

I would also really like to see more experienced users vote on this issue, particularly @Cunard: and others.

As for Tasca being an "associate professor"? I'm not sure who created the page and why they decided on "(professor)", but it certainly seems fair enough to me. The article creator didn't try to put "(full professor)." A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. Thus, "(professor)" is a fair an accurate description, and I think it's unfair to call out the article creator for inaccurately describing the subject and picking on whether Tasca is a full or associate professor.

I hope that I have laid out a strong case for why Paolo Tasca should be a strong keep and speedy keep. Mikejisuzu (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Associate and assistant professors are types of non-professor, not of professor. "Full professor" is an American term, but the subject has no connection with America. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. No they're not. In the UK, these people used to be (and in many universities are still) called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers, not professors. An associate or assistant professor who called themselves or insisted on being addressed as "professor" would still be looked on askance, because they have no right to that title. The use of "professor" as a synonym for "academic" is an Americanism, pure and simple. Elsewhere, the unqualified "professor" only refers to someone who holds a chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rox De Luca[edit]

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

Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention, nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf		This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH).	See WP:SELFPUBLISH.	✘ No
https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte	This is the artist's CV.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution			This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist.	✔ Yes
https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object?keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158			Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother.	✘ No
https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search?q=rox+de+luca	This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/			~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work.	~ Partial
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193.			Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book.	✔ Yes
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24.			Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview.	✔ Yes
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf			A paragraph mention on the subject and their work.	✔ Yes
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26.			Offline source, accepting in good faith.	✔ Yes
https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536			Very short mention of the subject and one of their works.	✔ Yes
https://www.projectvortex.org/	This is a project with which the artist is associated.		Name doesn't even feature in the source.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/			Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention.	✘ No
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca	This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject.		See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Lionetta[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced article, nothing of notability in the text and no coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a quick search on La Stampa's historical archive (which I highly recommend) and it returned a few hits: 1, an interview dated July 1982, on the release of their second album; 2, a short profile dated November 1982; 3, a concert profile dated June 1999 (which makes me wonder why the article says they broke up in 1987). There's also a profile on the website of Buccheri's council website (it looks dated, but it is the council website!). To me, these results suggest there are likely sufficient offline/historical sources to sustain an article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the Buccheri profile link: it's here! On reflection, this seems to be part of an advertisement for a 2004 concert, so I don't think it can contribute to establishing notability as a non-independent source, assuming the council had any involvement in the concert. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google Books seems to return some hits/mentions in the context of Italian folk revival music; this seems indicative of a longer profile as a book chapter. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those sources do not adequately support notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources newspaper and book sources identified above by Ignatius that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola[edit]

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

Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:

Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building. I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Yup. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:

WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability (my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING.

I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING: Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Montasola, until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[4] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub. The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy. I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article. Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population. The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Hexperos (via WP:PROD on 10 September 2023)
Benedicaria (via WP:PROD on 7 September 2023)

Redirects

Templates

Italy[edit]

List of Serie A broadcasters[edit]

Ernesto Wong[edit]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

Gransito Movie Awards 2008[edit]

Renzo Vitale[edit]

Paolo Tasca (professor)[edit]

Rox De Luca[edit]

La Lionetta[edit]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola[edit]

Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates