Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludovico Racaniello

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. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludovico Racaniello

Ludovico Racaniello (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be a shoddy automated translation of the Italian article. Gilliam 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - AFD != cleanup. Just copyedit and source it and it should be fine. MER-C 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, should be sourced and referenced Alf photoman 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree AfD shouldn't be used as a way of improving aticles. However, it is here now and the article as it stands offers no indication of why the subject is notable, let alone sources. If this changes my opinion may as well. Nuttah68 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I have to agree with Nuttah68. The article is basically incomprehensible, and I can't understand from the text why the guy is notable. I also couldn't find any online sources (other than WP), which is not surprising for a subject this old. So, at this point, I think it's best to scrap it and start over.--Kubigula (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have reduced the article to a stub with what meaningful content I could find. From the original Italian Wiki article, the subject appears notable. I will make a request at Wikipedia:Translation for someone to translate the original properly. WjBscribe 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  Request made, see Wikipedia:Translation/Ludovico Racaniello. WjBscribe 07:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not a bad way to approach this. However, I am concerned that the Italian original does not cite any sources. Seems like we may just be importing a problem; another unreferenced article. Can you provide a general sense of why the person is notable from your reading of the Italian original?--Kubigula (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is always a problem with translations from other language Wikipedias. So far no other language Wikipedia has a requirement that articles must be sourced, although they encourage it, and as result few are. They do however have notability requirements and the Italian article has existed since August 2005 and it has been edited by a number of experienced editors on Italian Wikipedia. I think its reasonable to defer to them on notability here. WjBscribe 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's not unreasonable, and there is no harm in waiting for the translation to see what we really have. So, I'm watering down my support for deletion - though I can't quite bring myself to support keeping the article without some firmer indication of notability. It's quite possible that the Italians would (perhaps appropriately) consider any Italian Count to be per se notable for the Italian language Wikipedia.--Kubigula (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even as a stub, at least points people to the Italian article so that they can get their own (possibly shoddy) translation. —Dgies^t c 07:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in light of the revisions by User:WJBscribe. If necessary (and it seems to be), tag the article with relevant cleanup/translation templates. Black Falcon 07:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, should be better sourced and referenced SlideAndSlip 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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.