Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Wizardman 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francesco Dionigi

Francesco Dionigi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Dionigi is not notable: his sole claim to fame is that Petrarch addressed a single letter to him. The bulk of this article consists of a rumination about climbing Mount Ventoux, and the material belongs there. Article was prodded, but creator removed prod tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Remove the irrelevant material and what's left is "Francesco Dionigi was an Augustinian monk," which is not enough. I see no hope for expansion with relevant material. Deor 00:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/move Petrarch did not pick a nonentity as the recipient of this famous poem and there is material to add--I've begun but I may not have time to finish. Most of the content of the article does belong better in a separate article on the very famous poem. I'll move it when we're done, and add a little content on Dionigi in the meantime. DGG 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly sure those works are by Francesco Dionigi da Fano, a writer of the 16th-17th century (note the publication dates of 1594 and 1612 for the works you mention in the article, and this catalog entry for the author [1]. Petrarch's friend probably did not live that long. I agree with you, though, that Petrarch's poem/letter may deserve an article of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are right on that.DGG 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I also note that Petrarch's friend Francesco Dionigi da Borgo San Sepolcro was also associated with Boccaccio, so there might be enough out there to write an article about him, but so far the only source I've seen that treats him as an individual is Giuseppe di Stefano, "Dionigi da Borgo S. Sepolcro, amico del Petrarca e maestro del Boccaccio," in Atti della Academia della Scienze di Torino 96, classe 2 (1961-62) 272-314. Even the Cambridge History of Italian Literature only mentions him once, as the recipient of Petrarch's letter. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note the newly created Birthday of alpinism, which includes a bunch of the material from Francesco Dionigi. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Completely different article - see Talk on the article.--Doug talk 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The same facts, from the same sources, do not make a "completely different article" because they are hung on the most dubious of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any reason to keep this, at this point. Famous people have written a lot of letters to friends. Brianyoumans 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no information on him in this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to an appropriate title for the letter (and rework this correspondingly). There's no claim of notability for this guy, only the letter. If DGG can add more material on the monk, that may be fine, but I wonder how much is known about him? A redirect from his name to the letter would be sufficient if nothing else can be said about him. Rigadoun (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There seems to be nothing in this article about F.D. and his life. Perhaps something is recoverable, but it is not here and the direction of the article does not seem hopeful. If some new information is found and reliable sources are added, the article can be created. At the moment, there's nothing here worth keeping. Bucketsofg 12:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak move and rewrite per DGG and Rigadoun; but if it's not rewritten, it should go. I suppose Ascent of Mont Ventoux is the proper new title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could possibly be merged in Petrarch. There is no source for this "Birth of Alpinism" claim though. Savidan 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Coldwell's actual source appears to be a Wikipedia edit, unsourced, to a list article. It is entirely possible that some mountaineer said it sometime. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have been doing some further investigation as to the original source of this. When I started the article of "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism in good fath I assumed this to be true since this has appeared for 3 years in Wikipedia under the articles mountaineering, Petrarch, and Mont Ventoux with no objections or rebuttals from any Wikipedians. I assumed in this time period there has been thousands of other editors that viewed this and none disapproved these facts. It has also appeared in European Wikipedia under various languages with no disputes (i.e. German, French, Italian). I am trying to locate others that have verified this, since this was started 3 years ago by others. Keep in mind also this is an entirely different subject than Francesco Dionigi, the monk and close friend of Petrarch.--Doug talk 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source, take 521. (As for this being a "different article", I leave that to the judgment of passing editors. As for me: Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's also irrelevant for whether this article should be deleted. The claim remains in the mountain article (where I added a source), and in the foreign-language mountain articles. None of them have articles on this guy, and for good reason. Rigadoun (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What does Francesco Dionigi have in common with mountaineering?--Doug talk 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to elsewhere: based on what's in the article right now, this person is quite clearly not notable in his own right. Moreschi Talk 18:30, 27 June 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.