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 rewritten version. Sr13 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a new version of Francesco Dionigi, which was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi (and see the closely related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). The present article is different enough from Francesco Dionigi that I don't think this qualifies as reposting of deleted content, but it's clear that the creator of this article (who was also the creator of Francesco Dionigi) is determined to have an article on Dionigi. I still don't think he meets our notability guidelines. History has noted Dionigi only in relation to Petrarch and Boccaccio--he is basically a footnote in those men's careers, and to the extent that he needs to be covered in Wikipedia, it can be done in Petrarch and Boccaccio. The sources that are cited in the article are difficult to verify, given the abominable citation style, but they give only trivial coverage to Dionigi--i.e., a paragraph or two in much longer articles or books. A possible exception is the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (inaccesible to me at the moment).

Some of the more interesting claims in this article ("he was reputed to have psychic powers") are unsourced, others are sourced but mistaken--e.g. "In 1339 Robert the Wise received from scholar Dionigi the bishopric of Monopoli." should be "In 1339 Robert the Wise obtained the bishopric of Monopoli for Dionigi." And what, exactly, is "He [Petrarch] consulted much with Dionigi about his quilt feelings" supposed to mean? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'll try to answer these which I believe most are referenced:
  • that of the reference that he was known to have "psychic powers" can be found in #1 footnote. In this reference it says that Dionigi received his doctorate circa 1324 and that in addition to his theological studies, he was also greatly interested in classical learning, judical astrology, and he was even "reputed to possess psychic powers."
  • that of the bishopric of Monopoli seemed to me also should have been for, however that can be found in footnote # 15 on page 106 and 107 where it says "The new year (1342) brought him yet a third bereavement by the death of Dionigi, for whom King Robert had three years previously obtained the bishopric of Monopoli." That wording was confusing to me and logically should be that Dionigi received the title. In this case I would have to agree with you that logically it should be "for", however I was just following the reference wording. It is likely that I misread the wording and it really meant to say that Dionigi received the title from King Robert - showing that King Robert had much respect for Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro and he was in his employ.
  • In Petrarch: His Life and Times by Henry Calthorp it says on page 313 "Dionigi was a man of deep piety and unusual learning, a theologian of scholarly sympathies, and a friend that Petrarch could confide all the troubles of his heart. Probably he took him for his confessor; certainly he sought his advice about his love for Laura. Dionigi showed keen insight into the character of his penitent."

The sources are easy to verify as most are linked and the others are obtainable in most large libraries, especially university libraries.--Doug ^talk 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Dionigi is notable and worthy of an encyclopedic article because he was a mentor to both Petrarch and Giovanni Boccaccio. Dionigi was a scholar and lectured at Sorbonne in philosophy and theology. Dionigi was Boccaccio's personal tutor and influenced Boccaccio's writing and art considerably. Dionigi was also employed by Robert the Wise and taught him theology and astrology. Dionigi influenced many of Boccaccio's famous works including Esposizioni and Genealogia deorum gentilium. Dionigi was a unique writer himself. Dionigi organized the coronation of Petrarch's crowning as poet laureate in 1341 for Petrarch's work Africa. Dionigi is an influential figure in a literary time and activity known as trecento humanistic studies - which influenced Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. Petrarch wrote many letters to Dionigi, including Ascent to Mont Ventoux.--Doug ^talk 18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as before. I must suppose "quilt feelings" to be a psychological interpretation of auricular confession, but it smacks of OR, as does the claim that Dionigi "organized" Petrarch's coronation as laureate. Since Africa was not yet published, and indeed never finished, it is doubtful that Petrarch was crowned for it, and responsible biographies say so. I will look for the Dizionario, but it is a tertiary source; articles on genuinely notable people would not need to use sources like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tertiary source indeed, but perhaps it would indicate some suitable secondary sources. It's (allegedly) the source for the claim that Dionigi organized Petrarch's crowing as poet laureate, but I'll reserve judgment until I get a look at it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is referenced as footnote # 16.--Doug ^talk 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the "quilt feelings" quote is a somewhat garbled reproduction of a paragraph from Henry Calthrop Hollway-Calthrop's Petrarch: His Life and Times: "Dionigi was...a friend to whom Petrarch could confide all the troubles of his heart. Probably he took him for his confessor; certainly he sought his advice about his love for Laura." Hollway-Calthrop's book is from 1907, in an age whether authors did not hesitate to invent a full-blown biography from a few scattered scraps of information; when such an author says "certainly", you may read that as code for "I have no evidence, but I think that..." We don't need to follow his example. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just going with the references - in this case Henry Calthrop Hollway-Calthrop's Petrarch: His Life and Times.--Doug ^talk 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came to this AfD based on this post on my talk page. Since the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic appears to be Wikipedia notable. In any event, appears to be enough reliable sources that are independent of the subject to form neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. In addition to what already is in the article, here are some references that I found that mention Dionigi (some of which may already be in the article):
  • Took, John. (March 22, 2003) Medium Aevum. Zygmunt Baranski, Chiosar con altro testo: leggere Dante nel Trecento. Volume 72; Issue 1; Page 160.
  • Didier, Peron. (May 23, 2003) Libération Voyages Mont Ventoux Pic épique Etape mythique du Tour de France, le mont Ventoux a autant fasciné les écrivains que les grimpeurs. Randonnée méditativesur les traces de Pétrarque. Issue 6850, Section: Guide.
  • Comadira, Narcis. (April 1, 2004) Diario El Pais (Spain). Unica: L'ascenció al mont Ventós. Section: Unica; Page 7.
  • Velli, Giuseppe. (December 22, 2005) Italica. Petrarch's Epystole ** Volume 82; Issue 3-4, Page 366.
  • Cannarsa, Aurelia. (June 22, 2006) Italica. Versum efficit ipsa relatio contrariorum: il modello agostiniano del dissidio in Petrarca. Volume 83; Issue 2; Page 147.
  • Winkler, von Willi. (December 30, 2006) Süddeutsche Zeitung Es war einmal: Petrarca und die Entdeckung des Ich. Section: SZ Wochenende; Page 6.

Also, I posted a note on the article talk page on how the article might be improved. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"mentions Dionigi" is not the same as non-trivial coverage. Most of the references cited in the article mention him in passing while covering other subjects. E.g. this reference mentions Dionigi on 2 pages; the book is over 371 pages long. This reference mentions him on 5 pages, including the index; the book is over 311 pages. This one mentions him on 5 pages; the book is at least 309 pp. long. This article, which is about a letter addressed to Dionigi, mentions him by name on 2 pages; more importantly, it provides no biographical information about Dionigi. Given my reading of these sources and my previous experience with the article's creator, I don't think any of these sources provide non-trivial coverage of Dionigi, which is an important part of the notability guideline. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What Libération says is "En 1336, Pétrarque, poète, moraliste, diplomate, exilé depuis l'enfance d'Italie à Vaucluse, rédige un texte splendide (1), une lettre à un ami, le père Dionigi da Borgo San Sepolcro, professeur de théologie, qu'il insère dans un vaste recueil épistolaire en latin, les Familiares." That is to say, Petrarch wrote a letter to him, once. Most of the rest of these say the same thing, in other languages. We have an article on the letter. There's no need for this content fork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has been reworked and improved as a biography.--Doug ^talk 22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been changed but not improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's known, he's talked about more than 700 years later--the non-notables of that age have all left already. The article is very poorly written. I've fixed some and removed all the remarks that belong in an article about Petrarch, not in an article about Dionigi. He'll be remembered long after some of the drivel from the 21st century who have articles on Wikipedia have been forgotten by everyone on the planet. KP Botany 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And I provided a source with non-trivial coverage of Dionigi--there's plenty of coverage of him, but folks who study Early Italian Renaissance Classical Latin scholars are not as well represented on Wikipedia or the web as folks who write articles about every single Pokiman card in the deck--go to a library, rather than google, just to see what's available. KP Botany 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Charles Stinger's Humanism and the Church Fathers, that work mentions Dionigi on 2 pages (well, three, counting the index entry). I think this is also trivial coverage. If you want to argue that any modern coverage of a person who died 700 years ago is non-trivial, then do so. But what's known about this man fits into a short paragraph, and the only reason he's known in a modern context is because of his relationship with Petrarch.

By the way, I'm not sure if your Pokemon remarks are directed at anyone in particular, but I'd note that several of the people involved in this AfD, including myself, are proficient at using research libraries. I just don't think Wikipedia should be spammed with articles about every single person who's connected with Petrarch. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've researched Dionigi in an academic library and you still think he's not notable enough for Wikipedia? Well, there's not really much I can respond to that.

However, he we go to basic definitions, which I'm still stuck with on Wikipedia, because I think it's about Wikipedia policy not my feelings about friends of Petrarch's.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."

"Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992 January 6. ) is plainly trivial."

I can't seem to find your definition of "trivial" that being mentioned on two pages (actually about one) in an academic work is still trivial--you see, there's no definition of volume of mention on the AfD guidelines, and, in fact, this is not a trivial mention of Diogini in the book.

The source is reliable, there are multiple sources on the man, and, again, there is no requirement that sources contain more information than there is about the person.

This AfD appears to be a vendetta, or so I thought at first, but dismissed the idea assuming good faith, until you come back with the argument that you failed to use initially, that you have researched him in an academic library, then tell me that you consider mentioning friends of Petrarch to be spamming. I can't find that definition of spamming. Please reconsider whether or not an AfD is the appropriate place for your personal disagreements with discussions of Petrarch--I don't think it is. And, when you've researched something in an academic library and found it wanting, discuss the results of your search up front rather than holding it back as a weapon. I disagree with your conclusion. KP Botany 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Useful copyedits, in particular the deletions. The article looks much better. KP Botany 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • What I mean by "trivial" is that Dionigi is never a subject of interest by himself. He is not the main subject of academic monographs, nor of a peer-reviewed article. He is only mentioned very briefly in works about something else, usually Petrarch (either his entire career or the letter usually called the "Ascent of Mont Ventoux"). So far I haven't seen that anyone writing in English thinks he's important except through his involvement with Petrarch. If there's no interest in Dionigi as a figure on his own, I call that trivial coverage. In the language of WP:NOTABILITY, the sources that people have brought up so far do not "address the subject directly in detail."
    • Further evidence that Dionigi is not considered notable is his absence from the Cambridge History of Italian Literature--oh, wait, he's mentioned briefly as an influence on Petrarch. If you know of a comparable history of medieval Latin literature I'll be happy to look there.
    • As for "spamming", I consider the creation of multiple articles on non-notable concepts or people, including a nice dose of content forking, to be spamming. It doesn't help that the articles in question are often poorly written. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That someone who lived in the 14th century to be discussed in numerous reliable sources seems to define notable; will nearly any of Category:Living people be written about in AD 2700? Deletion here would be merely WP:RECENTism run amok. Further, I would say anyone mentioned in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani from that vintage is per se notable. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have left a message about this new AfD on the talk pages of the editors who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much improved since it first incarnation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CarlosS & others above. Never having seen earlier versions, the notability concerns seem misplaced, and the apparent dismissal by nom of sources not in English odd. Oh, the disinfo-box and Victorian "artist's impression" should go. Johnbod 10:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a "dismissal"--I just haven't been able to obtain the non-English sources yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 11:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although one suspects that the article has been created in order to create a notable "shell" in which to insert a non-notable "kernal" (the Petrarch letter), we have enough here to keep. As for quality, that can be addressed by editing. Bucketsofg 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The content is sufficient, the life & work of an important figure in his day. The references are a reliable standard national biographical encyclopedia, a standard academic work on the general subject, a recent specific and relevant article in a good journal, and numerous contemporary references to show the notability as viewed in his day. The nomination nonetheless was a perfectly good faith nom based on what could reasonably be seen as an attempt to evade AfD. I noticed this in part because I was notified by the nominator as he says above, which further demonstrates the integrity--because I defended the original article as strongly as I could based on the sources then available. DGG (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I seldom have concerns about notability of folks who lived seven centuries ago. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When trying to cover a person from so long ago, I would be concerned about notability mostly if it meant you'd never be able to find sources. Since some reliable sources have been found, I think that's enough. The line about 'quilt' in the article deserves to be fixed. EdJohnston 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if he's good enough for the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, he's good enough for us. I like to think that WP:ENC + WP:V = "Wikipedia coverage should be the union of all reliable scholarly specialist encyclopedias". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the kind of article that raises serious questions. Comments like if he's good enough for the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, he's good enough for us and The references are a reliable standard national biographical encyclopedia, a standard academic work on the general subject, a recent specific and relevant article in a good journal, and numerous contemporary references are misleading. The references are cleverly seeded to suggest scholarly support for the claims made in the article, particularly the claim that he was a mentor to Petrarch and Boccaccio. On close inspection of the sources, however, that's not the case. The article's only real reference for these huge claims about Dionigi is the Moschella article.The fact that there is not a single credible source backing any of the extraordinary claims made here (and as iterated by several others above) is to me highly suspicious. Surely, surely! if he was the mentor to Petrarch and Boccaccio, more reasonable evidence can be adduced than a single article in Dizionario Biografico. A quick search on Google Scholar [1] shows he exists and was active in early humanist circles, so there is no doubt this could be kept. But this needs to be much better sourced to retain the specific claims about his relationship with Petrarch and Boccaccio. As it is, this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia stumble when scholars examine the veracity of the information and substance of the material included. Eusebeus 11:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a strong consensus to keep, but the article as currently written has serious plagiarism problems, including some reproduction of copyrighted text without attribution. Because of this I wonder if the best course is to delete and then rewrite, so that the copyvios aren't in the page history. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having commented above in favour of keeping, but being aware of related copvio issues in another article, I'd support that. Johnbod 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said: the plagiarism is detailed at Talk:Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro#Plagiarism?. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, for now, replaced the content with ((copyvio)), since much of the plagiarism is from a source published in 2004. I intend to rewrite from scratch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 10 July 2007 (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.