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. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Barzini family

Barzini family (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN ( talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep This does not establish a reason to delete. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Andrew Davidson: Do you have any actual reasoning or are you being purposefully contrary? The reasoning for the content's removal is perfectly legitimate, so please provide reliable sources if you think the assertion is false. TTN ( talk) 19:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• The nominator is the one who has to make a case and currently I'm only seeing a vague wave. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Then you're just being purposefully contrary and have no actual opinion. Considering that you've commented on three of my AfDs now, you know full well the position and purpose of the proposal, but fail to actually comment on it based on its actual merit. TTN ( talk) 23:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close WP:NPASR  Nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE, which states, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why."  See also WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge somewhere. No reliable sources cited, no indication of real-world notability, article at present is all plot summary. The "keep" and "procedural close" votes about involve pretty spurious reasoning. I fail to see what WP:NPASR has to do with anything; the fact people are descending to weird wikilawyering says a lot about the merits of the article. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Ok, one by one, "no reliable sources cited" is not a policy based reason for deletion.  The closest is WP:DEL7.  If there are people who think WP:DEL7 is not really what the community means, I've tried to get a new WP:DEL-REASON created within the last six months, and the attempt was unsuccessful.  As for "No indication of real-world notability" we've previously discussed that when you use personal definitions such as "real-world notability", it helps to define your terms.  NPASR is such that if the problems with a problematic nomination are corrected, there is no reason not to re-open the AfD.  The claim that procedural discussion provides evidence about the article is a fallacy, as the procedural reasons may or may not be related to the merits of the article.  Do you support improving the quality of AfD nominations?  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Do you have any reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this subject, or are you here to engage in wikilawyering? I'm happy to discuss sources, but I've really no interest in playing the game that you're trying to draw me into. Josh Milburn ( talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and then redirect as the solution because what's here is simply information about the series characters and it's unsourced, there's nothing to merge because of that and any necessary information exists as the other articles, hence nothing to actually keep. The 2 Keeps are solely based with "No basis for deletion" but the fact it's only simple information about these characters is enough to delete and our deletion policies allow it, since we're not Wikia. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per the spot on analysis of J Milburn. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 9 January 2017 (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.