Talk:Sperlinga

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sicily Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with Principality of Sperlinga[edit]

There is apparently no evidence whatsoever in reliable sources that there is, or ever was, a "Principality of Sperlinga" or "Principato di Sperlinga" as a political entity. The two references I've been able to find to "principato di Sperlinga" (this book, this website of the Regione Sicilia) use it strictly to mean "the title of Prince of Sperlinga". The content is mostly unreferenced; there's nothing that can't be covered at Sperlinga (there'll be plenty of room there once the recently-added unreferenced and unencyclopaedic content has been removed). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As noted in my comment on the Principality of Sperlinga talk page, a reliable source has been requested, but none has been cited which documents that Sperlinga was a "principality", let alone a sovereign principality. Indeed, it is dubious that "Principe di Sperlinga" was ever even a title granted by any sovereign fount of honour. But even if it were, that would not establish that Sperlinga was a sovereign principality, nor that any such petty, long-vanished property has a history that is notable enough to justify a separate article on English Wikipedia, as distinct from inclusion in a historical reference (if properly sourced) in the article on Sperlinga. All of the information on this "principality" has been added to English wikipedia by Alec Smithson who has also stated on that article's talk page that Sperlinga was a "sovereign principality", but we have only his assertion for that fact -- no verifiable footnote. FactStraight (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the additions by Alec Smithson to both these pages appear to be part of a bizarre attempt to exaggerate the importance given here to the House of Natoli in general and to Giovanni Natoli in particular. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the pattern and have come to the same conclusion: the problem extends across several articles edited under several sole-purpose accounts. FactStraight (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above.--Yopie (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've taken that as consensus and gone ahead and performed the merge. There wasn't actually much to merge, but I have written a little new text to cover the 59 years when Sperlinga was ruled by a prince. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition Merger[edit]

I will be produced about the sources you do not melt. --Alec Smithson (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Castle of Sperlinga[edit]

Castle of Sperlinga is yet another concoction of fact, fancy and plain old-fashioned lies from the same editor as Principality of Sperlinga. I suggest merging the tiny amount of securely referenced material there into a new section of this page; if it ever grows to where it is out of proportion to the whole, it could then be split off again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per WP:FORK--Yopie (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected that page here; I could find no useful content of reference to add to what is already here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]