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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi[edit]

Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

1. JJ is the nominator 2. JJ wrote his proposal 3. No one else agreed with him 4. JJ attempts to recruit voters and intimidate those who do vote to keep.

This shouldn't be a political blog. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia.Ryoung122 00:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you seem to have read WP:COI? Why do you refer to the mere use of boilerplate text as spamming, as you certainly seem to have a habit of such use? Why don't you seem to have read WP:SILENT, or in fact to have noted that when you broke the silence you didn't in fact disagree with any proposal text posted to WP:WOP? Why don't you source your charges of recruitment and intimidation? Why do you feel such a need to make throwaway comments about political blogs? I was going to ask "why don't you source the article" but you followed up the meaningless word "keep" by not saying anything about this article at all; I guess you could accuse me of digressing now. JJB 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I see a single source on the page. In Italian. I see text and pictures on the page, mirroring your blog. If there are other sources, by all means, please rescue the article. It's not helpful to assert that there are sources (in all caps, no less) without actually putting them in the article. Inline citations are better, but if you don't know how to do that, please put them under a heading called "References" at the bottom of the page. Then someone interested in doing half your work for you can take it from there. David in DC (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a university paper on the biology of aging (even if it has debatable entries);

http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~pfi/pfi/de/lehre/Information-Studenten/Biologie_des_Alterns.pdf

It includes Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi, of Italy. Any person reading this could be tempted to look up Wikipedia to find more details. An encyclopaedia contains information on the highest mountains, the longest rivers and the oldest people. That’s what an encyclopedia is! By any stretch of the imagination, these people should be included in an encyclopedia. I even think that Maria Olivia da Silva (with an appropriate note) should be included even though she was not verified.

Then there are these:

http://www.mytag.it/salute-e-benessere/159-genova-morta-a-114-anni-le39italiana-piu-longeva-di-tutti-i-tempi.html

http://www.ara21.org/Sections-op-printpage-artid-157.html

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo289728.shtml

http://www.ilpiave.it/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1641

http://www.wikideep.it/cat/lavagna/virginia-dighero/

http://www.repubblica.it/2005/j/gallerie/gente/centenaria/1.html?ref=search

http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Virginia%20Dighero-Zolezzi/

http://www.katagogi.com/Common/New/Ajax/ProfileInfo.aspx?l=AR&mid=bb35f2b8-23ff-4c41-81d7-0bfdabaab593&fid=16175&PreveVal=9692%7CTHGkrqXlvxygjg0ryRiphivOldc/Jw0jmoDfrQXFJgY=%7Cjy990e8jsN76cdgY1jIg9g==1

and on and on it goes.

Cam46136 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

If any of these are WP:RS, please rescue the article with them. David in DC (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go to Wikipedia to find out the truth!

Cam46136 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

DavidinDC, I'm not "assuming" there are sources, there *are* sources, listed in external links, but not cited to the inline text. Look again. Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again. You're wrong. There's a single source, listed under the word "References" at the bottom of the article. There are no external links. There are four wikilinks.David in DC (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as of user Cam46136. Elmao (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The above editor did not exist before today. Is this meatpuppetry?

Excuse me, since when is Italy's oldest person ever (from 2005 to 2010) not notable? Coverage established notability, not your opinion.76.17.118.157 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a university paper on the biology of aging (even if it has debatable entries); http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~pfi/pfi/de/lehre/Information-Studenten/Biologie_des_Alterns.pdf

I cannot read Italian, but if your introduction tells me the paper has debtable entries, I believe you. I would not use a scholarly paper that I knew had debatable entries as a source for a wikipedia article. I hope you would not either.

http://www.mytag.it/salute-e-benessere/159-genova-morta-a-114-anni-le39italiana-piu-longeva-di-tutti-i-tempi.html

I cannot read Italian, but www.mytag.it does not look like a reliable source. What is mytag?

http://www.ara21.org/Sections-op-printpage-artid-157.html

My firewall filter identifies this as a social networking site

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo289728.shtml

I cannot read Italian, but this looks more like a reliable source. If an Italian-speaker could read this, determine if it was a reliable source, and then use it to source facts in the article, that would be swell.

http://www.ilpiave.it/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1641

I cannot read Italian, but this looks more like a reliable source. If an Italian-speaker could read this, determine if it was a reliable source, and then use it to source facts in the article, that would be swell.

http://www.wikideep.it/cat/lavagna/virginia-dighero/

This is a wiki, and it's sourced to wikipedia.it. C'mon.
However, I looked at the Italian wikipedia page. It seems to have about eight sources. An Italian speaker could easily check these out, see if they fit the wikipedia.en reliable source rules and then rescue the article from the sorry, near-sourceless state it's in. I've done it on a couple of these articles (Farris-Luse and Thiers) where the sources were in English. How 'bout someone devoting some energy to rescuing the article with these sources. It's way more productive than listing the sources here and proclaiming "See, there are sources." Be a wikipedia editor. Use reliable sources to source facts in the article.

http://www.repubblica.it/2005/j/gallerie/gente/centenaria/1.html?ref=search

These are photos. I don't read Italian, but the only text here is the captions to the photos. If the caption confirms some fact in another source, it wouldn't hurt to include this as an additional source. But the caption of a photo, even one published in a reliable source, is less reliable than article text. It would be a very slender reed to use as the sole foundation for any but the most trivial of facts.

http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Virginia%20Dighero-Zolezzi/

C'mon. It's an obvious wikipedia mirror. Confidence in, and the credibility of, a list of sources is seriously damaged when the list presents potential rescue articles strewn amidst dreck.

http://www.katagogi.com/Common/New/Ajax/ProfileInfo.aspx?l=AR&mid=bb35f2b8-23ff-4c41-81d7-0bfdabaab593&fid=16175&PreveVal=9692%7CTHGkrqXlvxygjg0ryRiphivOldc/Jw0jmoDfrQXFJgY=%7Cjy990e8jsN76cdgY1jIg9g==1

Again, c'mon. This Arabic page is sourced to www.zappedia.com. Click here to see what that is. Here's a hint: Not a reliable source. David in DC (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which way I'm leaning for the article at this point, but along with you I'm calling bollocks on some of the sourcing here. Even putting the zappedia.com thing aside (stretching AGF to its limits, I can see that as a case of LINKROT), most (although not all) of the sources are obviously Wikipedia mirrors. I'm still on the fence, but there's no way anyone can seriously claim some of those are sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:50, 14 December 2010 (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.
More