Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Guido

Marcello Guido

Marcello Guido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unref'd bio created in July 07 by a contributor with no other edits. Article attempts to make claims of notability, but nothing of note comes up via Google. No incomming links and nothing to indicate this person is, infact, notable. Lugnuts (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that the subject meets criteria at WP:BIO. There is no equivalent biography on the Italian Wikipedia either, for what that's worth. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - very basic biographical information at Wikipedia article taken from Archiplanet where there are plenty of links to architectural projects and publications - needs building up, but pointless deleting [1] Opbeith (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Happy to withdraw this now. Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, in this case it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie (added subsequently: - "and very scant content" - but after all, this was a stub inviting expansion Opbeith (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)), but some of these fire-fighting exercises are infuriating. I can't see that the existence of latent articles does any real harm - they're there ready for someone to follow up when they come looking - and responding to impending deletion often means putting other important things on hold. Marcello Guido's architecture is worth the article, though not really worth the distraction - architects will survive without attention and the information hadn't been adequately assembled. However other proposals for deletions that people end up battling to save such as articles about massacres with a significance in international criminal law supported with information but lacking adequate referencing are appalling. Opbeith (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by the discussion above or by the nominator's retraction. None of the many sources in the article appears to be reliable, and, although I can find plenty passing mentions of the subject in reliable sources,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] none of those sources has as much as a single whole sentence about him, so they can't be said to constitute significant coverage. The issue isn't whether "Marcello Guido's architecture is worth the article", but whether there is significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I said it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie because there weren't any deccent references. So I provided some. The bloke's Regional President of the national architects' association - confirmed at the association's website; the Dedalo Minosse Special Prize he was awarded is featured at the Dedalo Minosse Prize website; the Wikipedia Dedalo Minosse Prize article describes how prizes are awarded "by a jury that includes internationally-renowned architects, writers, art historians, journalists, industry executives, and planning officials." Independent enough? reliable enough? OK, he's not Brunelleschi, so go on, then, delete. Every time I come back and have a look at AfD I end up wanting to roll over and die at the determination of some people to find reasons for deleting human knowledge from one place. I have other articles I want to spend my time on, but Guido warrants his rather than deletion. Right, I'll go back to a few more notable Dungeon and Dragon characters or Pikachu, pointless wasting time trying to reinforce serious articles when I know what Wikipedia rules prefer. Opbeith (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please believe me when I say that I far prefer articles about notable architects over Dungeons and Dragons characters, and the fact that I found a lot more reliable sources mentioning Guido than anyone else has done shows that I have approached this discussion in good faith, but I still don't see anything that makes me consider him to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the first one of your references I read - - the InArch Lazio lecture by Alessandra Muntoni includes him along with the likes of Frank Gehry and Daniel Liebeskind. What am I missing? Opbeith (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

www.inarchlazio.it