Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Guido


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Marcello Guido

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unref'd bio created in July 07 by a contributor with no other edits. Article attempts to make claims of notability, but nothing of note comes up via Google. No incomming links and nothing to indicate this person is, infact, notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that the subject meets criteria at WP:BIO. There is no equivalent biography on the Italian Wikipedia either, for what that's worth.  Gnome de plume (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - very basic biographical information at Wikipedia article taken from Archiplanet where there are plenty of links to architectural projects and publications - needs building up, but pointless deleting Opbeith (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work! Happy to withdraw this now.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, in this case it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie (added subsequently: - "and very scant content" - but after all, this was a stub inviting expansion Opbeith (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)), but some of these fire-fighting exercises are infuriating. I can't see that the existence of latent articles does any real harm - they're there ready for someone to follow up when they come looking - and responding to impending deletion often means putting other important things on hold. Marcello Guido's architecture is worth the article, though not really worth the distraction - architects will survive without attention and the information hadn't been adequately assembled. However other proposals for deletions that people end up battling to save such as articles about massacres with a significance in international criminal law supported with information but lacking adequate referencing are appalling. Opbeith (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by the discussion above or by the nominator's retraction. None of the many sources in the article appears to be reliable, and, although I can find plenty passing mentions of the subject in reliable sources, none of those sources has as much as a single whole sentence about him, so they can't be said to constitute significant coverage. The issue isn't whether "Marcello Guido's architecture is worth the article", but whether there is significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I said it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie because there weren't any deccent references. So I provided some.  The bloke's Regional President of the national architects' association - confirmed at the association's website; the Dedalo Minosse Special Prize he was awarded is featured at the Dedalo Minosse Prize website; the Wikipedia Dedalo Minosse Prize article describes how prizes are awarded "by a jury that includes internationally-renowned architects, writers, art historians, journalists, industry executives, and planning officials."  Independent enough?  reliable enough? OK, he's not Brunelleschi, so go on, then, delete.  Every time I come back and have a look at AfD I end up wanting to roll over and die at the determination of some people to find reasons for deleting human knowledge from one place.  I have other articles I want to spend my time on, but Guido warrants his rather than deletion.  Right, I'll go back to a few more notable Dungeon and Dragon characters or Pikachu, pointless wasting time trying to reinforce  serious articles when I know what Wikipedia rules prefer. Opbeith (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please believe me when I say that I far prefer articles about notable architects over Dungeons and Dragons characters, and the fact that I found a lot more reliable sources mentioning Guido than anyone else has done shows that I have approached this discussion in good faith, but I still don't see anything that makes me consider him to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the first one of your references I read - - the InArch Lazio lecture by Alessandra Muntoni includes him along with the likes of Frank Gehry and Daniel Liebeskind. What am I missing? Opbeith (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not contagious - just being mentioned in the same sentence as someone who is undeniably notable doesn't in itself demonstrate notability. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on this issue if you can produce any independent reliable sources that have a few paragraphs about Marcello Guido. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While you were adding that I was just looking at another of your references - is all about Guido's Piazza Toscana project and refers to how Bruno Zevi was proposing to publish some pictures of the Piazza Toscana project in the journal he was in charge of even while it was still under construction, which the author of the article Cesare de Sessa of Univ. of Naples Faculty of Architecture described in the article as "Fatto del tutto eccezionale, nel circa mezzo secolo di vita della rivista." - something quite exceptional in the fifty years' existence of the journal. De Sessa then goes on to compare the architectural dynamism of Guido's project with the corkscrew lantern of the dome of Borromini's Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza.  There's something in Wikipedia rules somewhere which I can't remember that says you don't have to dot the i's and cross the t's, a bit of  brain can be assumed in the reader (I confess I added the last bit) - but there's no need to when it's already there. And for heaven's sake look at the work.  I don't say instead of anything else, but look at the whole picture.Opbeith (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the interview in the presSTletter newsletter at Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi asks Franco Porto, President of the Sicily Regional Section of InArch, which living Italian architect would he choose to build his house - guess who he picks (for the way the contemporary language he uses allow both creativity and an awareness of history to express themselves)?  When asked which international architect he picks Richard Rogers, so whether you choose to respect or challenge his judgment he's not just flicking through the Yellow Pages.  Why on earth are we semi-informed amateurs chewing over this?  Why doesn't Wikipedia have a review system so that people with some expertise and familiarity with the subject area are the first point of referral when a deletion request is supported on grounds of lack of notability?  Crazy.  It would save so much time and effort.Opbeith (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this article / discussion offers an example of how dangerous the very frequent practice of using basic search engine results as a guide is, particularly but not only with reference to non-Anglophone sources. Opbeith (talk) 13:06, 6 February 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.