Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gualtiero Galmanini


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Gualtiero Galmanini

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale, copied from the article's talk page, is:

Not notable enough. Despite the existence of many interwiki, everywhere the same. There is not even a source of birthplace. --212.178.219.27 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion, but obviously reserve the right to put in a !vote later if I want to. Reyk YO! 11:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The statement that he was one of the central figures in the architectural revival of Italy in the 20th century is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sourcing. I find it extremely unlikely, given that a Google books search for his name finds only a handful of mentions and he is not mentioned in our articles Architecture of Italy and Italian modern and contemporary architecture. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. We should not have articles claiming impact for someones works without the sourcing to back up the impact claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's flattering to have my statements repeated, but it would be better if you based your comments on your own research into sources rather than rely on what's in the article or what I have said. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (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.