Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cittacotte


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cittacotte

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Orphaned article, rather promotional in tone, that seems to be about a series of miniatures made by one particular artist, Vincenzo Vizzari, who does not himself have a Wikipedia article. The references are vague, and it's not clear that they establish notability. —Bkell (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What nom says is true, but if we don't have an article on pottery tourist souvenir model buildings, of which these relatively classy examples - & I can't see we do - this could usefully be repurposed to do that. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment It should be deleted or merged into pottery, but as it stands it really is promotional in tone. Arty pants,  Babble 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly don't merge to pottery! Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The maker's website implies that Cittacotte is a trade-marked term, not a general description of pottery souvenir model buildings. Souvenir buildings need an article, but this ain't it. If it's going to merge anywhere it should be Souvenir, but I can't see the promotional content sitting well in such a short article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (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.