Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stiamo bene insieme


 * 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. No compelling case for notability has been made Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Stiamo bene insieme

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not a proper WP entry. Regardless of notability, WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the interest of a better focused discussion, I have stricken through the part of the intro that sidetracked the entire discussion thus far. gidonb (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Italy. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This may or may not be notable, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY certainly does not apply. This is about a TV series, not a word or phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Stiamo bene insieme actually is a phrase in Italian, meaning "we look good together". Our dictionary article explains that this phrase is the title of an Italian tv series. È tutto: that's all it explains! gidonb (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A TV series is not something that you would find covered in a dictionary. If you want to argue that this TV series is not notable then please do, but this is nothing like a dictionary entry. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that there is nothing more here than a definition of three words: Italian tv show. If you want to call that differently, no problem. It's not about the name. It's about the principle. And, sure, this can be expanded but in its current state should not be an article. No objection to redirecting and mentioning the show elsewhere either, if it truly belongs. gidonb (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is about a principle, and it is a principle that you haven't grasped. This is a nearly substub encyclopaedia article.  It doesn't define words.  It tries to tell the reader about an television show, and in fact tells the reader almost nothing about it.  It is from an editor who has in the past created lots of almost content-free substubs, and that has been a problem.  But unless you've actually researched the sources to determine notability, you do not have a policy-based rationale for deletion.  In fact "this can be expanded" is a rationale for not deleting.  We keep stubs that have scope for expansion, as long as there is adequate context for identifying the subject.  You want this deleted?  Show that you've done the research to show that it cannot be expanded.  And please familiarize yourself with what our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy actually says, which is not your erroneous idea of what dictionary articles are.  Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem with stubs and with the fact that these can be expanded. My problem is with these substubs. Articles that only define what a thing is and do not provide any other information should imho not exist in Wikipedia. Dictionaries definitely can provide more detail as well but in their most concise form that's what you'd expect. I appreciate that there are people who defend dictionaries, the other data usually included, and their overall service to humanity. My problem is with these articles, not with dictionaries. I nominated two of these articles and a list that provides nothing but titles. Whatever the community decides! I received a message from the serial article creator on my talk page. gidonb (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though it tries to tell the reader this is an Italian TV series with an article on Italian Wikipedia which you can help expand if you want to improve the content. That was the idea, that thousands of people collaborate and work together. Most of the content free substubs were basically transwiki placeholders to blue link missing articles which were presumed notable... ♦  Dr. Blofeld  18:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are project pages for that. Creator basically confesses that he never intended to create a proper article. This is another clear indication that the article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. The ONLY source in the article does not have SIGCOV per the person who placed it. gidonb (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course. You missed the point of why such stubs were created. They were placeholder entries really to bridge the gap between wikis. The problem was that they needed more content and sourcing... A massive number of stubs were expanded and wouldn't have been if they were project pages..
 * Not missing any points. Your points are about the past and the future. AfDs are about the present. This article should presently not exist. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete Notable enough for somebody to be a fan of it and upload episodes to YouTube but I can't see decent sources to write an article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC),
 * Week keep Searches in Google Books on,  ,   turn up various sources that discuss the series, mostly snippets in Italian, that indicate a reasonable amount of coverage as would be expected of a series that ran to 16 episodes. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2022 (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.