Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calendar of the Digger


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Calendar of the Digger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and none seem to be available, no real article content beyond a description of the book and no article on the author. Other than being a couple of centuries old can't see that this has anything to warrant an article or to demonstrate notability Jac 16888  Talk 17:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This sounds identical to the PROD that was contested for supposed lack of validity. This sounds perfectly valid, but I am neutral. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, is WP:OLDBOOK relevant here? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, the author appears to be notable, see Italian WP article here, whether his books warrant standalone articles? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my WP:BEFORE on the Italian title - "Calendario del vangatore - it does not seem notable. The present article seems to be 1-to-1 translation of the Italian Wikipedia article. It seems this work was one of several "Calendar of" books or chapters that were bundled together into Corso d'Agricoltura pratica. I don't quite see how this sub-work passes enwiki notability, and I don't think it brings us closed to a bio on Lastri who may be notable. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete in absence of an article Marco Lastri to redirect to. I don't think WP:OLDBOOK is any help here; there still needs to be discoverable evidence of the work's impact, popularity, longevity or similar, which I can't find (it's actually a nice change to check up on something where the search results just plain stop after a page or two, rather than trail off into false positives :). Maybe a physical library trawl would find some, but we can't suppose that. Someone did a nice job writing up a venerable work from their library; alas I don't think it meets our notability requirements. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're unwilling to do the work of visiting a library to find out if there is evidence of notability in offline sources, why is the default action to delete? In the absence of such information, on a historic topic such as this, shouldn't the assumption go the other way. There is a strong assertion of notability here, "The volume is considered to be one of the best books on agrarian practice in Italy during the nineteenth century." That assertion is uncited but if we're unwilling to do the legwork to track this down, shouldn't we WP:AGF on the part of the article's original author. ~Kvng (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no. That's not really how we operate - the responsibility for providing verification lies with the author; and unsourced material that has been challenged can and should be removed (and this right here is the process of challenge and acting on it). There's no barrier to recreation if such sources are presented later. But in the meantime, we have a responsibility towards our readers for not presenting unverifiable, possibly untrue material, that supersedes assumption of good faith on individual editors' part. - At least that's my take on it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Add: since I spend a lot of time on NPP trying to assess whether articles on Indian "internet entrepreneurs" meet our notability requirements, I shudder to think what would be lurching around in mainspace now if we were to rely on unverified assumptions of notability there... it's a horse of a slightly different colour with old books, but the principle applies :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unable to verify notability assertion in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2019 (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.