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. The snowball clause applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bartoli family

[edit]
Bartoli family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total lack of sources for just about anything in this article (see talk) combined with some obvious hoaxes on Commons, e.g. File:NapoleonattacksVolterra.jpg which is Keith Rocco's The French Attack on Marengo leads me to believe this article is a hoax. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the more I think about this article, the more dubious it seems to me. A town in Italy being ruled by the same Ducal family 1190-1530, and then again 1665-1797, and then again 1815-1860, all under the same name? Without the main line of the family ever ending? It seems to stretch the bounds of credibility somewhat to imagine that twice after being overthrown the same family would be able to just waltz back in and re-establish power without seemingly having any trouble whatsoever. When we combine that with the fact that the Medici's rule over Volterra for more than a century isn't mentioned in the article on the Medici, and that the Medici did not lose their power in Tuscany in 1665 as the article states... Well, there's no real reason to believe that anything in the article is particularly accurate... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2016 (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.