Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandro Bracchitta


 * 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 speedy keep. per SK1 (Nom confirmed on his tp he'd withdrawn) (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 20:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sandro Bracchitta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent, reliable sourcing with in-depth coverage found - just a few passing mentions, gallery bios and exhibition announcements. Important article claims are unreferenced (all events and awards), the only reference is a gallery featuring that artist. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment (nom) - while it-Wiki is a separate project with separate rules (and we aren't bound to their decisions by any means), I find 7 (!) deletions of the article on it-Wiki troubling. It looks like there is a lot of interest to promote this artist via Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I found a few articles about the artist, and listings in galleries. He appears to be internationally known. Ragusa news on an exhibit, Modern engravers. The latter lists awards he has won, and that his work has been shown at the Venice biennale (I'll check that). I will add these to the article. LaMona (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep After the latest sources added, I can not help but agree with the maintenance --Stellato46 (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep --Saxus (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (as nom) -- added another ref and the EL from above (thanks). The coverage is still a bit thin (some sources are not completely independent and/or only regional), but together with several awards this has improved enough for a weak keep imo. The article also avoids any promotional fluff, which is always a positive point. GermanJoe (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  17:25, 7 July 2015 (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.