Talk:Venere Pizzinato

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to List of Italian supercentenarians.

Incumbent

If there's anything in the wikipedia or wiktionary entries for "Incumbent" that suggests the use of that word in a succession box about longevity, it's exceedingly well-hidden. This is all of a piece with the deeply unencyclopedic view that old age is a contest, whose "winners," "record-holders," and "record-breakers" are inherently notable. David in DC (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Redirects should be discussed first on the talk page before redirecting, in order to establish consensus. It is also inappropriate to make "threatening" comments to justify a procedure which was non-standard.

Further, the material from the article was not conserved or transferred to the page, making it hidden.

Fourth, the level of article quality does not indicate notability or not. The article could be improved first.

We are talking about the recordholder for the oldest Italian person ever.

Finally, to be notable due to age is not "one event". Boxers winning a title is not what the "one event" rule means: what it means is that persons such as Steve Bartman, notable only for a incident in a single baseball game, created one event that resulted in temporary, one-time, ephemeral coverage. Holding a title, however, is a continuing honor that may last for months or even years.184.77.11.217 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on all accounts. First, there is no requirement at all to discuss a redirect first (see WP:BOLD). Second, announcing that an article will be taken to AfD is not "threaten ing". If this is as notable as you seem to think, the article will easily be kept at AfD. Third, there is no need to merge any material from the article, as it contains nothing of encyclopedic value. Fourth, quality of the article has indeed no bearing on notability, but as far as I can see, nobody claimed this to start with, so you're just using a straw man here. Fifth, as for the one event thing, that's clearly explained on the project page in the link I gave in the edit summary. I'll take this to AfD now and you can give your arguments there. --Crusio (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these recent events have been enlightning, at least I have learned a couple of things. I admit that I sort of appeald to intuition at first when reacting to the redirects of the Italian SC's, but I have looked into what Wikipedia say, and we must understand that there are exceptions and that a few things are not spelled out as rules; on the Bold page WP:BOLD) I could not actually find any rule about redirects or complete deletion. However, it do say one should always discuss things on the talk page of the article before making anything big. Also on WP:Editing policy it sais "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page." --Leoj83 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended biography and new sources

I have provided this today. I think the article now have a decent standard and should not be deleted. --Leoj83 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]