Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torre degli Sciri

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torre degli Sciri[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)

Only one (probably non-independent) source, a draft with the same content was declined. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I initially tagged the article as a WP:G11; it was declined. I then moved the article to draft for pretty much the same reasons the draft was declined, i.e., lack of sourcing. Although the author submitted the draft to AFC (without doing much beforehand, although they had said they were going to add sources to the admin who declined the G11 - they obviously didn't like the rejection and recreated the article (instead of moving the draft to article space on their own, so now we have two iterations of this page)). I haven't done any WP:BEFORE and so am not voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no comment on the author’s behaviour, but I think it’s a keep, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. I’ve not done a book search, but pretty sure it’ll have a mention somewhere. I agree it’s woefully sourced currently, but the tower’s age, its status as the only complete surviving such tower in Perugia, and the fact that it’s been the subject of scientific research suggest that it’s notable. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-ordered it, toned done the tourism guide POV a bit, and scattered some cites around. An internet search confirms that there are also a range of book sources available. KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you joking? A medieval building that isn't notable? Clearly notable and meets WP:GNG in any case. Plenty of coverage. Described as a symbol of the city. The nominator has clearly done no searching for sources whatsoever nor bothered to check the Italian Wikipedia article: this is a failure of WP:BEFORE. It's unfortunate that Italy is so dreadful at heritage listing, but in any country with a decent heritage listing system this would be a clear pass of WP:GEOFEAT. However, it does have a basic listing: no. 1172. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not voting, since I was the one who declined G11. I’m just here to say, Italian Wikipedia has a number of sources cited in the “Bibliografia“ section of the article. The proper task here is to help the newbie author source their new article, not multiple efforts at deletion. -- Y not? 03:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expand, find sources, rewrite as needed. This is an obviously notable topic. Articles for deletion is not the place for cleanup. It should never have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2023 (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.