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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Villas in Naples (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list, not meeting WP:LISTN. Hitro talk 15:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:ATD, no issues that aren't fixable through ordinary editing or redevelopment. I can only guess at the way in which the nominator thinks this is indiscriminate as no explanation is given. Not passing LISTN doesn't mean deletion is necessarily merited unless it's an oddball classification; WP:LISTPURP is more relevant when we have an ordinary list of things by place. Looking at this list's potential as an index, we have five articles apart from this list in Category:Villas in Naples, which may or may not be enough, but many more if we go the next level up by place to Category:Villas in Campania, or even to the country level at Category:Villas in Italy, neither of which have a corresponding list. So this really is the kind of list that shouldn't be brought to AFD, but instead per ATD should be evaluated in terms of either further development at this scope or more broadly. Editors may decide there is justification for listing these at the Naples level because of existing or possible articles, and/or that it should also include entries that don't merit articles, or that it should be expanded to a wider geographic area. A further comment to the nominator: next time you list an article for deletion, don't leave it to the commenters to do this work for you, but instead walk us through the application of the guidelines to the content, and explain if, as here, there are related articles or categories. See WP:BEFORE as well as ATD. Otherwise it looks like a drive-by nomination rather than a thoughtful analysis. postdlf ( talk) 17:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure what kind of keep !vote was that. Category:Villas in Naples is enough to list notable villas. Still supporting delete. This one is nominated on notability grounds and notability does not require fixation. WP:LISTN is a notability guidelines. Hitro talk 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Right, I'm gathering that you're not understanding. So please take more time to read through the policies and guidelines I cited before responding here, as well as WP:NOTDUP regarding what is "enough" when it comes to lists and categories. postdlf ( talk) 18:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Fails WP:LISTN, that is my argument, you brought everything else here. I hope you are understanding this. I am resting my case, let the community decide. Hitro talk 18:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pure WP:listcruft(1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12), this is the only one of it's kind. We are not a directory and we don't need to have a list of this. It's utter garbage and so is the keep argument on this one. For god's sake, stop with the ATD arguments. Would you like it to be blanked instead? Also, the list is incomplete. » Shadowowl | talk 18:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete nothing there showing it passes WP:LISTN (mentions in secondary sources.) If kept, should be moved to List of villas in Naples. SportingFlyer talk 19:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:LISTN WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of non notable places, particularly if they are remotely linked to a business. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • NOTDIR prohibits directory services, which is a computing thing which has nothing to do with this. A list of notable or noteworthy villas is not indiscriminate by any stretch of the imagination. James500 ( talk) 17:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Which ones are notable?? The entries that have articles? I don't see any. This is one thing WP:NOTDIR covers, and not just limited to business contacts. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Some of them do have articles here. The article for Villa La Sirena is Villa Donn'Anna, for example. They all have articles on the Italian Wikipedia, as far as I can see. See the corresponding category and page over there. Looking at those articles, I think it is a safe bet that they are all notable. James500 ( talk) 03:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. List of cottages in Dorset would make about as much sense. Zoopla might be interested though. Spinning Spark 00:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• if there are books/journal articles out there that discuss Dorset cottages (especially if WP has a number of articles on some individual Dorset cottages:)), by all means create List of cottages in Dorset ditto articles on houses/cottages/villas of other regions/areas. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The topic certainly passes WP:LISTN. A selection of sources follows. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

1. Romans on the Bay of Naples: a social and cultural study of the villas and their owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400
2. Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples: Villas and Landscapes
3. Pompeii and the Roman Villa: Art and Culture Around the Bay of Naples
4. Rambles in Naples: An Archæological and Historical Guide to the Museums, Galleries, Villas, Churches, and Antiquities of Naples and Its Environs
5. Palaces of Naples
6. Roman villas on the bay of Naples
7. Roman Villas in Central Italy: A Social and Economic History

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

This is near-identical to Andrew's refuted argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of giant animals in fiction (2nd nomination). If he wants to use those sources to create a separate article called Neapolitan villa that perhaps includes a list but is, like those sources, more focused on prose discussion of history, architecture, etc., nothing is stopping him, but he really doesn't seem interested in building the encyclopedia so much as preventing the rest of us from maintaining it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I should clarify that I haven't read those sources, but I can tell from their titles that, if they are published books, they do not consist purely of a list of names of villas. The reason all of them include titles like that is no doubt that Andrew, as he did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppression of dissent, also has not read any of them, and simply Googled up a list of scholarly-looking books with titles that sound like they discredit his favourite of the dozen or so valid reasons for deleting Wikipedia pages. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and improve. A list of Roman villas is certainly appropriate: [1]. It satisfies LISTN and every site would be notable. List of Roman villas in Italy should not be red linked. It can be populated to begin with from Category:Roman villas in Italy, and then from the many other sources that exist. Medieval villas would also be appropriate: [2] [3]. As would more recent but historically important villas (there are, for example, in the Category:Villas in Naples a number of palatial examples from the early modern period to nineteenth centuries which look appropriate). And even if Naples was to small we could just expand to a wider area. James500 ( talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  This isn't a list of Roman villas. I suspect that the majority of them are not. I tried googling a couple at random and they both turned out to have articles on Italian Wikipedia; Villa Chierchia and Villa di Grotta Marina, and both of them say they are 17th century. Spinning Spark 13:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• • Looking at the coverage of those two in GBooks and elsewhere, and at pictures of the buildings, and bearing in mind the later is more commonly "Villa Grotta Marina", I would say that both look suitable for inclusion. The Chierchia looks like a palace, and if these buildings were in England, I would expect them to be listed from their age (pre-1700) alone: [4]. I am under the impression the Italian equivalent to listing is the vincolo: [5]. James500 ( talk) 17:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• TNT delete I'm not sure if this topic could, in theory, merit an article, but what is there is pure crap: practically unsourced, terrible English prose, etc. If they really "are many hundreds", then why were these 28, none of which are blue-linked, selected? Is it just a copy-paste job from Carbonaro and Cosenza? Baku really should be cautioned about leaving stuff like this in the mainspace, and perhaps their attention drawn to List of Man'yōshū poets, which spent two months (128 edits) incubating in the user space. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I'd be happy with draftify as well. Or userfy. (Although the fact that the article was created by an it.wiki editor with hardly any history here, and a hilariously anachronistic userpage given when their en.wiki account was first auto-created, might make the latter option paramount to deletion.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Lists are usually reserved for lists of notable topics, which this is not. And the topic itself fails GNG. Brad v 16:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I don't have an opinion on whether or not the topic of Villas in Naples is notable for our purposes, but I find it interesting that the page is not titled as a list page. As such, there could be a case to make that it should be kept but rewritten. In other words, change it into a regular text page that might have an embeddded list at the end, but would be primarily written about the topic, in regular paragraphs. There is certainly no reason that it must be a standalone list. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Tryptofish: If you look closely at the article and its creator, it's pretty obvious that they would not have been capable of writing a prose article on this topic. What little prose is there looks like MT, and the list might very well just be copy-pasted from the one cited source. There are native English speakers with high levels of education arguing "keep" at this AFD, but they just don't seem willing to do the heavy lifting and fix this article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

It is already significantly improved since the nomination, and whatever can be fixed in any event should not be deleted. postdlf ( talk) 01:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

TBF, the expansion was a unilateral action by Mortee, several days after the AFD was opened, and only a few hours before I wrote the above (and several hours after Tryptofish wrote the comment to which I was responding), and Mortee wasn't one of the editors I was referring to anyway (I hadn't noticed their "keep" !vote until just now). My original suspicion that the specifically cherry-picked list (are these the only ones that have articles on it.wiki?) was copy-pasted from a copyrighted source still stands, even if Mortee's first edit fixed it by changing the order around. I haven't examined Mortee's expansion of the article otherwise, so I have no opinion on whether my "TNT delete because the article that's there is pure garbage" is still valid, but the validity my reply to Tryptofish is not affected by Mortee's expansion at all. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. At this point, I'm persuaded that the page should be kept, and improved to be a non-list page that may contain an embedded list. I don't think that the creator of the page should be determinative of a deletion decision, because a flawed page can be fixed, and I'm seeing enough evidence of coverage of the history of architectural style that I'm satisfied that the topic is notable and encyclopedic. I think the problem here is that the page started out looking like a standalone list page, which is something that it should not be. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article itself referenced a book dedicated to the subject of villas in Naples, so I don't see a notability problem. I've added some blue links and some prose on the ancient history, sourced to another book. No doubt someone with access to the original reference can add a section on the later history. I may expand it further myself from other sources. Having a list appended isn't a good reason to delete a stub on a notable subject. Some surprising hostility in a couple of !votes above... it's just an encyclopedia. ›  Mortee _talk 20:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fine as category, but as an article it doesn't really work. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, meets WP:LISTN, as "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" ie. some books that discuss napoli villas include: Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples: Villas and Landscapes - "Through an analysis of five villas from around the bay of Naples (c. 100 BCE - 79 CE), the volume shows that in designing for luxury, Romans developed a sophisticated interplay between architecture and landscape, an interplay which is still seen in architectural design today." (could probably have a wikiarticle on this book with reviews here, here, here, here), Italian splendor : palaces, castles, and villas (discusses 2 Napoli villas), Palaces of Naples - "Thirty estates and palaces are featured here, each with its own style and its own story.", Romans on the Bay of Naples; a social and cultural study of the villas and their owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400 (another wikianotable-enough-for-an-article book, with reviews here, here, here, here), Italian villas and palaces, and Leisure & luxury in the age of Nero: the villas of Oplontis near Pompeii. ps. i'm not sure why some editors suggest that a category is a good replacement for some list articles, i thought they are generally only useful for/used by editors and not readers (if i am wrong please send me a fish or three:)) Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A list of notable (or even itwiki notable - this being the sort of thing one would expect better coverage of in Italian) villas in Naples most certainly meets NLIST, and is discussed as a set. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:GNG. There are no sources demonstrating this is a notable topic or evidence that such a list is necessary or appropriate for the given topic. This list is really just a list of fancy houses of a particular style in an arbitrarily chosen urban setting. Newshunter12 ( talk) 11:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Could you expand on why the sources given don't cover the GNG? These include a book on current villas in Naples as a collective and two on the Roman villas there, which is part of the subject of the article. 'Listcruft' is an essay and 'listen' suggests you think other !voters are disruptively failing to pay attention to an existing consensus; I take it that notability is your main deletion argument. ›  Mortee _talk 14:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The article violates WP:Listcruft (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12), and I don't feel there are significant reliable sources demonstrating this is a notable topic, including the books you mentioned. Ancient Roman fancy houses aren't exactly relevant to a list of modern fancy houses in Naples. It just gives the article a veneer of notability, when there are villas all over the world and we don't have tons of lists of them on Wikipedia. It's also pretty much a WP:SYNTH argument to try to connect ancient villas and modern villas as far as I can tell. Including the Listen policy was a mistake and I apologize for including it. Newshunter12 ( talk) 14:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply

We have numerous articles on individual villas. Some are in Naples. So we categorize them under Category:Villas in Naples and list them here. That seems very straightforward and simple to me, particularly when we have such a basic list of things by location. The essay LISTCRUFT gives no useful guidance; the relevant consensus-supported guidelines are WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. And that's all without even getting into WP:LISTN, though a credible argument has been made that this would also get a pass on that guideline too, which is sufficient though not necessary. postdlf ( talk) 16:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: meets WP:LISTN; all entries are Wiki pages (en.wiki / it.wiki). Sources are sufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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.