Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Anelli Wall


 * 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. I have tagged for neutrality per discussion on talk page -- Samir  धर्म 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Via Anelli Wall
the article is very POV and I don't consider it an argument for an encyclopedia (it's not an important fact); see more explanations in the talk page piero tasso 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The wall is real, it is controversial, and it deserves an article. If you feel that the article is currently POV, why not make it balanced instead of trying to delete it?  Dionyseus 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * that's the matter, I don't think it deserves an article; it's presented like the new Berlin Wall, seems to be important and scandalous, but it's not so --piero tasso 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An article by the Guardian Unlimited disagrees with you.  Dionyseus 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Padua. Wall has received media attention from non-trival publications, so mention of the wall should be given.  However, a full article is probably not needed. —  NM  Chico  24  [[Image:Flag of New Mexico.svg|25px]] 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You actually mean reliable publications, yes? Uncle G 10:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In stating non-trivial publications, I was implying reliable as well, of course. — NM  Chico  24  [[Image:Flag of New Mexico.svg|25px]] 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added a few references to the article, including the Guardian Unlimited article. There is a lot of coverage but unfortunately it is in foreign language media. If there is an article on the problems of immigrants in Europe on Wikipedia, perhaps it could be merged there. To my thinking, Padua is an example of the problem but the issue is not Padua so it would be inappropriate to merge it with Padua. GBYork 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Reliable sources, we prefer English language sources, for the convenience of editors and readers (although at the same time we prefer originals to translations, in order to eliminate sources of error), but non-English language sources are definitely not excluded. Bear in mind that cite news has a language parameter. Uncle G 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - irrelevant comment above. Doesn't have to do with topic. STYoto 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: STYoto (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Keep —  Controversial topic covered by major daily newspapers JChap2007 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Padua article. Controversial or not, subject is not large enough to merit a separate article at this time.  Lots of topics covered by newspapers do not merit articles.  SteveHopson 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment BBC News has an article about the wall.  TimesOnline has an article about the wall.   Sydney Morning Herald has an article about the wall.   Certainly there's enough information out there to expand the article, and certainly as time passes there will be more news about the wall.  Dionyseus 01:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added those references to the article. Now it has plenty of good references.  GBYork 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If I have enough time (it may take more than a month) I should write an article about Via Anelli (not only that wall), I've just to see if I find something really interesting. I'll write in Italian, of course, but then I'll ask someone to translate it for me :-) --piero tasso 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remark: I'm admin on de:, and we decided to keep this article (AfD discussion). Sarazyn &bull; TALK &bull; DE 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't understand German so I would like to userfy Via Anelli Wall for myself in case it gets deleted. Is that allowed? NLOleson 12:54, 24 August 2006 (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.