- 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. Consensus indicates this article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rio (Amatrice) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent reliable sources indicate that this province exists. Fails WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep on GEOLAND grounds. Rio is a frazione (village), with more sources at it:Rio (Amatrice). Its population is presumably lower than it was prior to population decline and the earthquake. It appears to be the only such village of Amatrice with an article. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 01:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like there are plenty of sources available in Italian and maybe French. First one I found was [1], which isn't necessarily sigcov but gets it over WP:V and potentially WP:GEOLAND. I've linked the article to its other languages. SportingFlyer T· C 05:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The it.wiki article is much more extensive and better sourced, so sources clearly exist to establish the notability of this place. Mccapra ( talk) 06:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment it appears from the above responses that this article qualifies for a place on Wikipedia. I'm going to speedy close as Keep. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:09, 1 July 2019 (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.
- 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. Consensus indicates this article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rio (Amatrice) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent reliable sources indicate that this province exists. Fails WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep on GEOLAND grounds. Rio is a frazione (village), with more sources at it:Rio (Amatrice). Its population is presumably lower than it was prior to population decline and the earthquake. It appears to be the only such village of Amatrice with an article. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 01:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like there are plenty of sources available in Italian and maybe French. First one I found was [1], which isn't necessarily sigcov but gets it over WP:V and potentially WP:GEOLAND. I've linked the article to its other languages. SportingFlyer T· C 05:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The it.wiki article is much more extensive and better sourced, so sources clearly exist to establish the notability of this place. Mccapra ( talk) 06:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment it appears from the above responses that this article qualifies for a place on Wikipedia. I'm going to speedy close as Keep. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:09, 1 July 2019 (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.