Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Bellotti


 * 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Luigi Bellotti

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has no independent reliable sources where the subject is the primary subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Clearly an important person. He would not have been given a titular archbishopric otherwise.  He clearly had a long and distinguished career in the the Vatican diplomatic service.  I cannot believe that numerous mentions of person such as him in newspaper archives if one tried hard enough to look.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide a policy based argument. My WP:BEFORE search yielded lots of sources on the Italian theatre and actor Luigi Bellotti, but not the priest. If he's notable, prove it by providing independent references which demonstrate significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep -- He was an archbishop and all Catholic prelates of the rank of bishop or above are presumed notable according to the notability guide of WikiProject Catholicism. The entry needs work and I'd be happy to do that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Articles of this calibre and subject very rarely merit deletion. It appears that, while performing substantial edits elsewhere no less, incorporated a significant number of sources that were not present at the start of this deletion discussion. I call on to consider retracting the deletion nomination on the grounds of both notability and article quality. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time of nomination the article was in a very different state than it currently is. I haven’t had a chance to look at the many sources recently added to the article after I nominated it. Once I do, I may consider withdrawing. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely understandable, . I note the major changes in my above comment and only invoked your name so that you might revisit the page. Here's to a fruitful review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, I appreciate Bmclaughlin9’s contributions but it still doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I’m not aware of a community authorized notability guideline for religious figures. can you link the notability guidelines you’re talking about and the community authorization? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bishops of major denominations are invariably considered to be notable by long consensus. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thats not what WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES says... It says “typically” not “invariably” so I think you might be misrepresenting consensus. “Typically” means that consensus is that sometimes bishops or similar aren’t notable, as appears to be the case here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Typically" indicates consensus. Consensus does not equal unanimity. Although, in fact, I do not recall a bishop of a major denomination ever being deleted at AfD, and I've been taking part in them for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Typically to me (and I think to most other people) means that there are two outcomes with one being more common than the other. If it was “typically editors express the view that...” you would have a point but we’re talking about outcomes not the the deletion discussions themselves on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. If in fact it never happens perhaps we should upgrade the language? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of article I’d really like to see kept... I assume that the reason we can’t find coverage is because the subject did most of their most notable work outside the coverage area of most major international sources. If I could grasp onto the faintest thread of policy to vote keep I would, but we don’t even have the faintest thread. As of now I’m the only one besides 4meter4 who has made a policy based argument, that worries me. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why on earth did you !vote delete? AfD is about opinion and forming consensus. You don't have to slavishy follow "rules". If keeping or deleting an article was entirely rules-based then we wouldn't bother having AfDs at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because there is literally no way for me to argue for Keep in good faith based on the complete lack of in-depth independent coverage and none of the secondary considerations being fulfilled. If we shouldn't follow our most basic of rules why have them in the first place? Also note that the closer is supposed to disregard non-policy based arguments, “I like it so its notable” or WP:PERESSAY aren’t policy based arguments. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Peterkingiron, Bmclaughlin9, Pbritti and Necrothesp. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - career diplomat and church leader. FWIW, I am not RC. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject is covered by several independent reliable sources, including the US State Department. Per WP:BIO, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office" are presumed notable; would not a diplomat be a holder of international office? –Zfish118⋉talk 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide the independent sources here for us to see then. The ones currently cited in the article are not in depth or independent, and do not mention the US State Department. Saying stuff exists without giving details such as names of publications or url links isn’t helpful.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The State Department source in the article is here Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BISHOPS. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:BISHOPS is an essay and not an official policy. It concerns me that there is not even one source among the many cited in the article where Luigi Bellotti is the main subject and is covered in depth. It doesn't seem right that WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES and WP:BISHOPS should be used to skirt around basic policies on notability and verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is enough reliable sources coverage for WP:GNG and articles do not have to have the subject as the main focus if they still include significant coverage about it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2021 (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.