Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caterina Parigi


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Caterina Parigi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I love art, but this is going a bit too far. She studied art when she was seventeen, but we have no further information, no works, no records beyond that one mention... she simply is not a notable artist by any stretch of the definition (note that for artists, just like for some other groups like nobility, there are books which don't specifically select notable members, but try to list every single one of them: being included in such books shouldn't count towards notability if there is literally nothing to be said about the person) Fram (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: as non-notable artiste. Quis separabit?  12:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but only because of the presence of a contemporary source (suggests to me she was notable enough that someone at the time picked up on her work). I admit I was pushing it a bit with this one, though, so if it's deleted I've no objection. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 12:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete We have no mention of any works by Parigi. We have no clue at all what happened to her after 1738. She does not in any way fit any definition of notability. I have to admit part of me is frustrated that we have so few articles on ever leaders in pre-colonial Ghana, I justcreated the article on Babatu (warlord) probably the over-arching figure in what is now northern Ghana during the last 2 decades of the 19th-century, yesterday. Yet we have an article on someone in the early 18th-century in Europe who literally did nothing. I am all for avoiding presentist bias, which we see in the extreme with an article on a Nigerian tabloid celebrity but lacking one on the first female Nigerian finance minister of the same name. But keeping articles on people who we know nothing substantive about is just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  14:20, 11 August 2017 (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.