Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vittorio Revetra

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 redirect to Operation Compass. If a proper reference can be found the information can be merged from the history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio Revetra

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

A Lieutenant-Colonel in the Italian Air Force during WWII. His claim to fame is that he spotted tracks of British vehicles, reported it to command, which didn't do anything about it, and therefore the British caught the Italians by surprise. In the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Privates who spotted the Japanese planes on radar are not notable, but the higher up, Kermit Tyler, who screwed up is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All hits in Google books (including for Italian books) for this name are only brief mentions of the incident where he spotted the British advance, with no details on Revetra beyond his rank and position at the time. As such notability is not established. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under the General Notability Guideline. Of course there is no reason why this information cannot be included in the relevant article on the battle itself (with an inline citation of course), it just doesn't meet the guidelines for a stand alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~: insufficient coverage to establish notability for a separate biographical article. Per Anotherclown, though, there would be no issues with including the subject's name in the article related to the incident (provided it is referenced). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to, and mention in, Operation Compass per Bahamut seems like a workable solution so long as it is referenced and doesn't breach WP:UNDUE. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Compass. Seems like another instance where the person isn't notable, but the event is. Redirects are cheap, and it is plausible (if less than likely) that the name could be a search term. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per the reasoning given above by Bahamut0013. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operation Compass. Notable enough incident to be mentioned within the context of that article. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little fuzzy as to the nom's reasoning. He seems to be saying that Revetra (a lieutenant-colonel who the article claims commanded the Italian fighter force in Libya) is non-notable because he didn't screw up, but that Tyler (a lieutenant, three ranks his junior) is notable because he did! That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If Revetra really was commander of the Italian fighter force in Libya then that would seem to make him pretty notable. I agree that since the article isn't currently referenced we don't know one way or the other, but if a reliable reference is given that he held that position then I would vote keep. We would certainly keep an article on a British or American officer who held such a position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you misread. Reverta relayed the information and a General disregarded the information. In Pearl Harbor's case, Lieutenant Kermit Tyler disregard the information, plus it has the added factor of the brand new radar. Rank doesn't matter, who/why of the screw up does. Bgwhite (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misread. I don't actually think Tyler is particularly notable. However, I suspect that he would be kept in an Afd simply because he was an American who played a part in an incident which everybody has heard of rather than an Italian who played a part (probably a much more significant part, in actual fact) in a part of the war which very few have heard of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now definitely keep. It appears that Revetra was commander of the Italian Air Force Expeditionary Corps in Africa.[1] That's definitely notable. Poor article, could do with much expansion, but obviously a notable individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked to a forum post that mentions he is a General and overall commander. All the books say he was a Lieutenant-Colonel and not the overall commander. A search for "General Revetra" and "Generale Revetra" on Google only mentions your linked forum. Can't find anything for just a plain Colonel either. Can't find anything beyond rank and position, but that certainly doesn't mean the info isn't out there. Can you see if something else is out there? Bgwhite (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've looked and I can't find anything on the internet. I think we need an Italian-reader to have a look at Italian print sources. My instinct is still to keep, however, since it does appear that Revetra held a senior position in the air force in Africa. Of course, if he was a general officer (or was later promoted to general officer rank) then under WP:SOLDIER he is intrinsically notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single posting on a very non-RS forum doesn't compell me to believe this air force command is even plausible, much less verifiable. An AfD must judge the article as it is, and not with a wild hypothesis of what it could be if certain unlikely conditions check out. If it's redirected and further information comes to light, it would be a simple matter to fix (or for that matter, to undelete it if that was the result). bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:58, 19 February 2011 (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.