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. There is enough of a consensus between those who believe that this as a distinct concept is a hoax and those who believe that the term might exist in some form but it is not notable in its own right to find a delete outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian school of fencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is a complete hoax copied/translated from Russian Wikipedia where the original article was deleted already. A complete discussion with thorough fact check is available (in Russian).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the 1908 Pompeo Molmenti reference in the article checks out. [1]. Thus, not a hoax, pace thorough fact check in Russian. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a closer look at the contents you're referring to. Couple of mentions of "Venice" and "fencing" in one book isn't enough to add it to the references' list I believe. PeterLemenkov (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As requested, a closer look at pages 74-75 of the public domain (published 1908 in Chicago) text, cited in the article and to which I linked above: "Although the duel went gradually out of fashion [in Venice], the young patricians cultivated the art of fencing, which could boast renowned masters among the Venetians from the sixteenth century onward; for example, Salvatore Fabris, who lived in the court of Denmark. In the Seicento Bologna alone could challenge the supremacy of Venice in fencing, The Venetians were masters of the art, and shared with their colleagues of Bologna the sound principles of fencing known as Bolognese or Venetian. After Fabris, the Venetian School can boast a Nicoletto Giganti, a fruitful innovator in the art of arms, Francesco Alfieri, of the Delia Academy in Padua, and Bondi di Mazo, who published in 1694 a treatise which contains plates admirably representing the movement and the thrusts at that time in vogue in Venice. In the eighteenth century Giacomo Borgoloco enjoyed a high repute. His school in the Calle dei Botteri at San Cassianto was frequented by young men of the noblest families, and also sent out such distinguished masters as Angelo Secchietti, Lorenzo Mottali, Vettor Dolioni, Pietro Busida, Alberto Bruni, and Paolo de Grandis." [footnotes omitted] Enough to establish this article is not a hoax. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as hoax. Am I doing this right? casualdejekyll (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a hoax. I emailed Matt Easton of Schola Gladiatoria. If you've seen any of his YouTube videos, you'll know that he's something of an expert on European swordsmanship. (I've never met him and have no involvement in HEMA; but I've written a couple of WP biographies of HEMA people, and had shown them to him for his interest.) He wrote : "I have just quickly scanned over this page, but I don't see specifically why someone would label it as a hoax. The sources are real and the citations are real (I even know some of the authors)." Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to invalidate your opinion, but I'd personally trust the source breakdown on ruwiki more then this, since they claim that none of the sources even mention the subject. casualdejekyll (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While this mention on a blog is insufficient to establish notability by itself, it is sufficient to establish that it is not a hoax. When combined with the citation the IP provided, it is clear this is a real thing. When combined with all the other sources in the article itself, it is clear that it is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing I get from the blog interview is that a specific "Venetian school" as the one described in the article does not exist (quote: "while Giganti describes himself as Venetian, his method is not wildly dissimilar to that of his contemporaries elsewhere in Italy"). --151.52.230.148 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have no idea why people are using the logic of "it exists so it's notable". -Indy beetle (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Russian Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Venice clearly had fencing masters and schools. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This is a case that relies on expert opinion that none of us are apparently competent to give. I cannot see blowing off the Russian WP decision without actually evaluating why they came to that conclusion, and I cannot see how the observation that people learned swordsmanship in Venice leads to the conclusion that what was taught there was a distinct style unlike that taught elsewhere. They teach fencing at Church Farm School too, and I have no doubt that they teach in a way consistent with all other American fencing. But frankly, my concern here is that if it were a recognized style, it would be a lot easier to document than this, and that the sources would be manuals on fencing rather than what comes across as a kind of athletic archaeology; if nothing else, it comes across, if not a hoax, as potentially an example of original research. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If is really is/was notable there would surely be a clearer case. Just because there was fencing in Venice doesn't mean that there was a notable Venetian school of fencing. Nigej (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:G3, or otherwise for lack of notability. Keep votes confuse the potential existence of a legit (although very nichey) topic History of fencing in Venice with the object of the current article and its made-up stuff (the "center of percussion" stuff, a "Bolognese/Venetian" tradition etc.). As an Italian, I looked for a "scuola di scherma veneziana", "scuola veneziana di scherma" or "scuola di scherma di Venezia" and I have found nothing referring to the topic of the article. There is no specific "Venetian school" or Venetian style in fencing, which differentiates it from the Italian school of swordsmanship. The Russian page was edited by User:Saltan.andre, a well-known hoaxer also active in Italian wikipedia, in which he created similar fake pages like "Scherma genovese" ("Genoese fencing") using the same technique (random pages in random offline texts mentioning Genoa or fencing used as sources to support hoax text). The creator of the page Maks gerold was also blocked in ru.wikipedia as a mass creator of hoaxes. 151.52.230.148 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify/delete Of course there was fencing in Venice (e.g. History of fencing in Venice as above), but it's not clear that there is or was a distinct method there as recognized as a separate school. The article highlights Nicoletto Giganti and Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, si da offesa come da difesa but again neither of them establish this as a distinct style within or from eother the broader Italian school of swordsmanship or Bolognese Swordsmanship (which also fail to mention this). Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 6 February 2021 (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.