Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colletto Fava


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Colletto Fava

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject of this article is a hill in Italy. Apparently, its main claim to notability is a work of art – a large, pink stuffed rabbit – that was placed on top of the hill in 2005. Sources for this article exist, but honestly I see this mainly as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. The placement of this artwork was an event that has not received coverage of a long duration or what I would term in-depth coverage, so I don't feel it meets WP:EVENT. It certainly hasn't had a lasting lasting effect or an impact that would prove notability. WikiNews published an article on this back in 2005, and that was the proper place for this subject. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose I have no view on whether the pink rabbit is notable but I believe that the hill is notable: simply by virtue of being a reasonably (and sufficiently) significant geographical feature. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The bunny aside, in looking at a terrain map, this doesn't appear to be a notable geographic feature in any way.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I just checked Google, and got 167,000 hits, hundreds of them with images. Colletto Fava is hard to categorize, but is clearly notable in my opinion. Tim Ross   (talk)  11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Tim Ross. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 14:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The hill is a notable place so the article hasn't to be deleted, I don't know if the work of the Gelitin is famous in that case the article can be modified but not deleted.User:Lucifero4
 * Comment I find it interesting that so many editors are saying that this location is inherently notable. What criteria can we apply to decide if a hill is notable? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Google News search linked above finds coverage of the floppy bunny from 2005, 2008 and 2009, and the Google Books search from 2006 and 2007. How is this not coverage of a long duration? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You have a point there. I'll strike that from my nomination. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to have some notability, both for geographical and the art event.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hold on a sec. Let's say that yes, this geographical location is inherently notable. Now read over this article. It's all about the rabbit artwork – hardly anything about the actual hill. Isn't that undue weight? (And if not, shouldn't this be moved to Hase (sculpture)?) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (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.