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. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taverna List[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)

It was just a personal electoral list created unsuccessfully by Claudio Taverna for the provincial and municipal elections in Trento in 2003 and 2005. The few subsequent information attributed to the party (support for La Destra and adhesion to the Pensioners Party) in reality seem to be inherent to Claudio Taverna himself. The sources on this list, apart from the poor election results, are non-existent. No encyclopedic relevance is deduced from the page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This regional political party was represented in the Provincial Council of Trentino and participated in a provincial election. If the article is deleted, its contents will be lost. Readers reading 2003 Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol provincial elections clearly benefit of this link. The article is properly sourced. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. --Checco (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep i fully agree Braganza (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Would suggest merge, but as there is no standalone article for Claudio Taverna on en.wiki (at least not yet), I come down on the side of keep, in order to preserve the information.--Autospark (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor political party, no lasting effect. No sources found in Engilsh, can't comment on other languages. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) local/regional party, with local notability only at most; 2) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:P1221. Yakme (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realized that this Afd nomination is the 15th recurrence (the previous instances are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) in which Scia Della Cometa nominated an article, created by Checco, covering a minor and rather obscure Italian political party. Almost all nominated articles generally cover parties with limited territorial diffusion, very short lifespan and which have obtained a low number of votes (sometimes lower than 1%) and which didn't elect any representative at any level.
Although I believe that the reasons for these nominations are valid and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything, it seems to me that all these nominations are part of an ongoing dispute between two only users. I would like to call both Scia Della Cometa and Checco to trying to sort their differences out in another manner, like for instance proposing updates on the current policies and notability criteria for political parties. I don't think that nominating for deletion all the articles created by one person is a constructive way to build consensus... Thanks to all. P1221 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P1221 I think you totally misunderstood my intentions. I am definitely not proposing pages for deletion based on the author! Since the list of Italian parties will have to be completed in the future, I am simply proposing for deletion the pages that do not seem relevant to me. Many of these were created by Checco, but not only by him, there is nothing personal about all of this. I am proposing the pages for deletion only after evaluating their content, the author is irrelevant to me. It is simply necessary to slightly thin out the number of pages of parties, to make the list of Italian parties more usable in the future. Indeed, I think to have proposed for deletion only pages objectively not relevant for an encyclopedia. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. I have chosen all the pages to be proposed for deletion before verifying the author (indeed he is not the only author of the pages I have proposed for deletion). However, if a user has created a considerable number of unimportant pages in the past, I don't think this can be a deterrent from proposing them for deletion...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa, let me clarify that all your nominations are legitimate and valid for me (and in fact I concur with your reasons in most of them), and I don't think at all that you operated in bad faith. However, if I were the nominator and I would notice a pattern similar to what I described above, I wouldn't keep on nominating new articles for deletion, even if they clearly deserve deletion. I'd rather talk with the author for reaching a compromise, or if this doesn't get anywhere I'd seek for third opinions or the advice of other contributors, in order to reach a broader consensus. P1221 (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P1221 Well, I would be sorry if anyone thought I'm not in good faith. However, I have no idea how to deal with this issue, other than via Afd. After all, Checco's position is clear and he reiterates it in every Afd: "Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organizing infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere." I am an inclusionist but I am aware that Wikipedia cannot cover everything. And the only way to involve other users, in this case, seems to me the Afd procedure. I don't think we have to push ourselves to re-discuss the current policies and notability criteria for political parties. In any case, I don't think this is the right place to address this topic, but if you have any ideas about the resolution of the issue, please to expose them to me in another seat (in my talk page, for example).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is simply a spill-over from Special:PermaLink/1087724241 this May 2022 dispute despite what is being said above. It appears to me that if the editors aren't willing to learn and continue with disruptive behaviour despite a narrow TBAN being in place, perhaps the original decision should be revisited. Pinging the blocking admin - Galobtter. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing Insinuating that these AFDs are a spill-over from the previous dispute is insulting towards me. What's disruptive in proposing the deletion of pages (whose authors are more than one) of three/five lines, can you explain it to me? These Afd had already been planned for some time, the proponent of the topic ban himself said that I could have started the afd procedures ("they may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic."), they were part of a well-defined procedure, read if you don't believe it!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole situation needs to be cleared up once and for all: we already knew that a considerable number of pages were created years ago that could meet Wikipedia's minimum standards of notability, and we also knew that most of these were created by one user. If on the one hand it would not be fair naming pages for deletion based on their author (which I am not doing at all), on the other hand it would not be equally fair to consider the fact that many pages were created by the same user as a deterrent: if a topic is not encyclopedic, it is not, regardless of who created the page. Let's consider the Taverna List: what's relevant on this page? The first two lines merely state that the list existed. The third line shows the (poor) result of 2003 provincial election, which can be seen directly from the page of the provincial election itself. The fourth and fifth lines do not refer to the party, but to Claudio Taverna's subsequent political career (without success). Would you consider it disruptive to submit a page like this for deletion?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change the topic ban unilaterally, and the current topic ban is very narrow so I don't see any violation. If you think there should be a IBAN or a ban from AfDs etc you can propose that at WP:ANI. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:19, 12 July 2022 (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.