Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venere Pizzinato

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to List of Italian supercentenarians. v/r - TP 01:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venere Pizzinato[edit]

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

Subject's only claim to notability is having lived very long. As explained on the page of the Oldest people project, this falls under WP:BLP1E. All useful information in this article (age record, country of birth) is present in List of Italian supercentenarians and the other lists enumerated under "see also". Crusio (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As she is the oldest Italian ever, I think there are many people that want an article about her. We should have a few days to improve it. --Leoj83 (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(see below). I just noticed that this AfD was not posted to the talk page at WikiProject WOPWorld's Oldest People that Crusio had mentioned in his comment above. One could construe that he made this AfD intentionally without informing the WikiProject members in which he was already aware of. To address his use of WP:BLP1E, it does not apply here because he did not quote the next paragraph of the WikiProject WOPWorld's Oldest People: "Supercentenarians whose age has been reported in reliable sources should be included in longevity-related lists, whether or not other notable, reliably-sourced facts justify a stand-alone biography." In the case of Venere Pizzinato, as she was the oldest verified Italian ever in that country, she garnered multiple reliable-sources articles regarding not just her longevity itself but as well as being in the record books in her country as the oldest person ever. Her status was not an one-time event; rather, it was across multiple events, i.e. reaching her 112th and subsequent birthdays (related to longevity only) as well as becoming the oldest verified Italian ever (a new, separate notable event). In light of that, I agree with Leoj83 above that we should have some time to improve this short biographical article with more reliable sources. Cheers, CalvinTy 15:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel I must protest the suggestion (above) that this AfD be "posted to the talk page at Project WOP" -- really, you'd think a more tasteful way might be found to refer to Italian-related discussions! EEng (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I hope everyone knows I was just kidding. EEng (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly one dolt didn't. One trout-whack per editor, please. David in DC (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, WP:AGF. There is no obligation whatsoever to contact a Wikiproject when an article is brought to AFD, so you should construe this as regular procedure. In addition, most projects use User:Headbomb's AAlertbot and get notified automatically of any PROD/AFD/etc of articles tagged for their projects, perhaps this project doesn't, so you should consider getting that fixed. Concerning your arguments, you misconstrue BLP1E. Her being the oldest Italian ever was the "one event". That's why the article cannot give any other notable facts about her, because there aren't any. Once people get over 100, many newspapers will publish articles on them around their birthdays. If your reading of 1E were correct, then everyone 110 or older would be notable for the multiple "events" of having subsequent birthdays. As for time to add sources, an AFD usually runs for seven days, so there is time to improve sourcing. Your reading of the phrase from WOP World's Oldest People is wrong. It means that supercentenarians should be included in lists even if they are not notable. Only reliably sourced facts that confirm notability justify a stand-alone article. --Crusio (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly to WP:AGF and I am not familiar with that bot you mentioned. Hopefully some of the more active project members will take note and act accordingly. Thanks. Now regarding BLP1E, I think you also may be in error in trying to "mesh longevity and record-holder" events into one continuous event. If your reading of 1E were correct, then Jeanne Calment should not have a Wikipedia article because her longevity and record holder as the world's oldest verified human ever 'were all one continuous event' from say, 1988 to 1997, is that what you are saying? Granted, I agree that many supercentenarians (110+) do not have articles, and nor should they, simply because of lack of media coverage (and reliable sources). Regarding the timeframe, I just feel that an AfD was not necessary because this article had stood for years, even before she became the oldest Italian ever. With the AfD in progress, you are speeding up the timeframe to "only 5-7 days". Why did you not express your concerns about the article in its talk page and let people update the article first? There is no deadline. Your first & only & last comment in the article's talk page was when you disagreed with an IP editor today and you immediately say to that editor, "I'll take this to AfD now and you can give your arguments there." It looks like a policy similar to "shoot now, ask questions later" in the form of "send for deletion now, edit later if have to". That was why I felt that your action for this AfD was jumping the gun at this time and bears attention to the underlying cause of you initiating this AfD. CalvinTy 18:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just said it: the article has stood for years without any improvement forthcoming. It is nothing special then to redirect such an article to an appropriate target or to take it to AfD. "Jumping the gun" would (perhaps) be if I took this to AfD 10 minutes after creation. --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you only replied what you wanted to reply. What about my questions such as "why did you not express your concerns about the article in its talk page and allow editors due process to edit the article?" Sometimes all it takes is someone to mention on an article's talk page saying, "I don't think this article can stand as it is, and I'm considering taking it to AfD." But no, you sent it to AfD the same day as your comments on this subject's talk page (regardless of minutes or hours; quite trivial). I also note that you chose not to answer my question about "then Jeanne Calment should not have a Wikipedia article because her longevity..... were all one continuous event... is that what you are saying?" In my honest opinion, this AfD cannot have any merit if you are unable to answer those questions as they directly parallels to this particular AfD. If you recognize that Jeanne Calment should have an article for being the world's oldest person ever, what's the difference between her and Venere Pizzinato as the Italy's oldest person ever (other than the country & world aspect)? They both are still encyclopedic. CalvinTy 04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you insist: 1/ There is absolutely no obligation to discuss anything on an article's talk page before starting an AfD. Personally, I'll start a discussion if I think an article is salvageable. As I feel that this article is irredeemable, I went to AfD immediately (being pretty sure that a PROD would have been removed immediately). The article has been around for years,so there has been ample time for improvement. In fact, AfDs run for a week, so there still is time for that. 2/ Whether or not Jeanne Calment is notable is not the subject of this discussion. One article at a time, please. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per nom and the rule against bio's of people whose notability hangs on a single event. (Strictly speaking, the rule only applies to living people, but its logic applies no less just because the grim reaper has been staved off no longer.) This article, and many others in the longevity suite of articles, are more properly included on lists, with the name of the person whose only notable characteristic is their recurring birthdate used as a redirect to the list. Some of these lists, i.e. List of supercentenarians from the United States, feature mini-bios. If supercentarians like the subject of this article have enough press coverage, the most fascinating things about their lives, properly sourced, could go there. But stand-alone bios of every centenarian or supercentenarian ever reported trivialize the encyclopedia. The whole focus on longevity as a competition, replete with record-holders and -breakers, down to the geographic level of Japanese prefectures and Swedish counties trivializes the serious study of human longevity.
    This article is as good a place as any to start prunibg what I've long argued is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN.
    As for listing this AfD on the WOP World's Oldest People wikiproject chart of proposed deletions, I'm off to do that presently. David in DC (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David in DC, I invite you to see if you can answer the same question I just posed to Crusio. Do you think Jeanne Calment should not have any Wikipedia article because her notability, in your own view, "hangs on a single event", a simple yes or no? If you don't think she should have a Wikipedia article, why have you not recommended it for AfD? I have already pointed out that not all supercentenarians should or even shall have a stand-alone biography -- because I agree with you -- that can trivialize the encyclopedia. That's besides the point here. Venere Pizzinato is not an example of an unknown supercentenarian without any significant reliable sources that details her life and how she became the Italy's oldest verified person ever. The mini-bios you mentioned are actually no longer encouraged by Wikipedia standards if I recall from memory; I'll be happy to find the appropriate guideline, but rest assured, I think the consensus was that the "mini-bios" format in some articles like List of supercentenarians from the United States makes the entire article look much less encyclopedic. I would feel that even a stub looks better than that type of format! Regards, CalvinTy 04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. David in DC (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(see below). The main reasons are 1) She is the oldest person in a country's history. I think this have encyclopedic value and should stand out in form of an article. And 2) There have been a lot of media coverage, which have been ingnored previously, probably because most of them were in Italian (but I have added several of these sources and extended the article). --Leoj83 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm, this paragraph and "source" does not help make a policy-based argument for notability. It's a yahoo newsgroup, for heaven's sake! David in DC (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok sorry if I did one mistake here (I'm not that experienced yet here on wiki), but I do feel you ignored the overall effort, the other sources and extended bio, plus the argument that she is the oldest in a country's history. As I have said earlier, I think this fact alone motivate an article (of course on the condition that it live up to standard quality) My contributions may not be big but it is a step in the right direction, don't you think. Cheers! --Leoj83 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've put a similar inquiry on my talk page. I've answered there, with a bit of technical advice, as well. Thanks for your cordial approach. David in DC (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had a bit of fun answering Calvin's first inquiry in an excessively literal fashion. I hope no offense was taken. I answered "no" because editorial judgment comes into play here. Being the oldest person on earth is qualitatively different from being, for instance, the oldest person ever from a Swedish county.
    And I haven't done any AfD nominating in recent days because it was my impression that, in the wake of the ArbCom longevity decisions, I should to focus my volunteer time on topics that ought be less divisive, like bringing the articles into compliance with the MOS and improving the footnotes. That doesn't mean I don't think a lot of these articles are AfD fodder. I do think that. But, as a member of the project (and in reaction to the fustercluck that ensued after I filed an MfD shortly after the decision) I've chosen to try to make the articles that exist better stylistically (Flags, bolding, proper footmotes that actually provide information about the source rather than a gazillion "Report of XXX Claimed YYYY birthday"). Wikipedia has no deadline so I figured we'd eventually get back to the core issues of WP:N and WP:RS. This AfD, filed by someone not at all involved in the former WP:BATTLEGROUND aspects of the project, presents a good place to start. David in DC (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None taken. I was asking for it when I saw your answer, "No"; I actually had to think what that meant since my question was using a negative in it. Go figure that I end up confusing myself in posing my own question. :-) I understand and have seen how you have focused your efforts on quality of various styles in articles lately. I have no problem with that thus my lack of objections to date ;-). I can see why you feel that many articles are "AfD fodder". Like Crusio says, one article at a time, so back to this particular article -- I unfortunately cannot understand that view of "Being the oldest person on earth is qualitatively different from being, for instance, the oldest person ever from a Swedish county." I am not advocating that every Italian supercentenarian gets a stand-alone bios, but certainly, the oldest person of a country -- ever (added for emphasis) -- should survive an AfD if the article is improved? For current living ones who is "simply the oldest of the country right now" (like you are fond of saying, they are just "staving off the Grim Reaper"), I can understand if there is a lack of coverage to justify a stand-alone bios for that current living person. This is not the situation here as Venere Pizzinato will always be in the history books as the oldest Italian ever for a period of time (2010 - present). Just my opinion. I encourage more editors to improve this English article on Verene Pizzinato; although, most of the reliable sources would be Italian. I will see what I can do. CalvinTy 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One problem with "oldest person in XYZ country" is that it is arbitrary (there won't be many supercentenarians in Nauru or Liechtenstein, for example) and in addition, unlike what nationalists like to think, countries are dynamic, not stable, well-defined entities. This person is a case in point. When she was born, her birth place was in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Later it became Italy. Suppose Jeanne Calment had been born and lived in Strasbourg. When she was born, that was Germany. It became French when she was 44 years, then German again when she was 65 and then French again when she was 70. Would she now be the oldest French woman ever or the oldest German woman ever? Or both? Fortunately, she lived in Arles and we don't have this problem, but this hypothetical example illustrates the problems with these nationality-based "records" and lists. --Crusio (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another is bias, in favor of western sources. The liklihood of finding good sources for every country's oldest person ever is much greater for Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and certain Asian countries. The encyclopedia winds up looking like there are more long-lived people in these places than in, say, Botswana, Tajikistan, or Bangladesh. There's no reason to believe that's true. David in DC (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good discussion here. Both Crusio & David in DC brought up an inference about lack of supercentenarians in some particular countries. David in DC feels there is bias in Western sources, but he ends up doing original research by saying "there's no reason to believe that's true". Let me clarify -- there are 3 good reasons why some countries seem to have higher verified cases of supercentenarians than other countries in no particular order: 1.) life expectancy of the citizens of that country, 2.) the population numbers of a country in comparison to other countries, and last but not least, 3.) some type of an uniform birth registration system as well as regular population counts (i.e. the decennial United States Census). All together, it would quite explain why there is no verified supercentenarian from Swaziland, for example.
  • Last thing, to answer Crusio's question about if Jeanne Calment had been born and lived in Strasbourg, she would be the oldest German-born woman ever without ambiguity. It is based on what country was named when that person was born. If a person today was born in France, but 50 years later, there is a new fictitious mega-country called 'Spafrany' (combining Spain, France and Germany). That person would still be French-born even if that person lives to be the oldest 'Spafranen' person ever. Not knowing what a "nationalist" truly means, yet I think it is overreaching to declare that any country's records should be thrown out of window because "they are actually a dynamic entity". What? Is it arbitrary to have articles about a country's government and/or its leaders as it is recorded today? No. Even 50 years later when that government and leaders are later made obsolete by a new physical or political boundary in the future, they are still encyclopedic in nature -- and so are their records. That's the viewpoint I am coming from. Sorry for the long read! Cheers, CalvinTy 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without discussing the general question of notability for these individuals, I do not consider ONE EVENT relevant--even if the person were living, which she is not. Living for 114 (or however many) years is not a single event, but a continuing process. As for general policy, we can regard as notable whatever we decideto regard as notable . I have no opinion about what we should do in this subject area. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All people who stood/stand out in something (for talent, work, exploit or record) deserve to have a personal Wiki page. You should NEVER snob a field of knowledge! So her article should be kept and improved!--Pascar (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't formed an opinion on this yet (give me until Saturday), but this isn't "a field of knowledge", this is more like "a field of being old". Someone notable in this field of knowledge would be a geriatric researcher of some sort, not someone who happens to be old. As to some of the comments above; I personally think it's easier to wait until someone dies before starting an AfD. Once they're no longer the oldest person in some geographical area, it tends to be much easier to discern their long-term notability; now this one has started (a couple of months after her death, which is good; the media flurry will have died down by now), so we'll have to roll with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other people who lived more then 110 years have an article.User:Lucifero4
  • I understand what you mean but a woman that live more then 110 is notable.User:Lucifero4
  • Delete. It's essentially WP:ONEEVENT. Also, the two "keep" votes above this don't comport with policy. Neutralitytalk 20:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutrality, thanks to Crusio above for that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS link as I had not recalled reading the entire 'arguments to avoid in deletion discussions' page before. There, I just learned quite a bit today. I noticed you did exactly what it said not to do there in WP:JUSTAPOLICY by simply quoting a policy without explaining your rationale (for instance, why do you think it is essentially WP:ONEEVENT when DGG above took the time to explain otherwise?). It is not WP:JUSTAVOTE and it specifically says: "As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision." I am confident that the closing admin here would concur & not count your statement as it stood. Regards, CalvinTy 03:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, as well as others, have given policy-based arguments for deletion. DGG argues that 1E does not apply, but refrains from !voting. --Crusio (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Voting is evil. (Somebody hadda say it. :)) David in DC (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wiki should be a free encyclopedia. If someone from Italy wants to search for the oldest Italian ever, he or she should get a result. If this article is deleted, there will be no result. The purpose of being an encyclopedia would fade. Makila 21:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My response (and I actually still haven't made up my mind yet) would be the following; what if someone from Italy wanted to find the tallest person ever from Italy? We don't have articles on people simply for being the tallest or shortest person in a given geographical area, so why should it apply to longevity? There are other things that I'm considering here, but I don't follow the logic there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's not true that it would be unfindable If this AfD succeeds, Venere Pizzinato should become a redirect. Please see Stella Nardari-Vecchiato, Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi, or Lucia Lauria. None of these people are WP:N-notable. Longevity is not a competition. Perhaps if it was, there would be notable contestants, record-holders, record-breakers, etc. (Although I think many of the soccer, baseball and NASCAR "celebrities" with their own wikipages stretch the notion of notability beyond logic, as well.) But, as we've already resolved, I think, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a slender reed to rely on, to make a policy-based decision in an AfD. Like Lucia, Virginia, and Stella, the article about Venere's name should be deleted and her name should be enshrined forevermore on en-wikipedia as a redirect term. David in DC (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Researchers don't study the tallest people to try to make people taller...in fact, since it's unhealthy, researchers try to limit height.
    2. Researchers do study the oldest people to try to make people older...it's good to live longer. But since false/exaggerated claims distort the research, it's important to establish whether claims are true or not. This requires some life-story details, along with documentation, to make sure the person is the age claimed.
    3. People in the past believed that longevity varied by nation. By showing national records are quite similar, that notion is being countered. Makila 04:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Just where and by whom -- and on whom -- are these creeepy-spounding research efforts, which "try to limit height," being carried out?
2. It's not self-obvious, as you blithely say, that living longer is always better. (Tithonus (poem):"Tithonus asks Eos for the gift of immortality...but forgets to ask for eternal youth along with it. As time wears on, age catches up with him. Wasted and withered, Tithonus is reduced to a mere shadow of himself. But since he is immortal, he cannot die and is destined to live forever, growing older and older with each passing day.")
3. Isn't it great to be smarter than "people in the past," who had silly ideas such as that longevity varies with genetics and geography?
Even granting that Trait A is good and trait B is bad, it doesn't follow that extremes of A are worthy of study while extremes of B aren't. In fact, you'd want to understand both. In any event, Wikipedia doesn't judge the worthiness of knowledge by its practical usefulness. EEng (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Height is unhealthy? I must be cursed, then, at 6'3". Actually, many people want to be tall for various reasons, and it's quite an advantage in many ways. I'd say more, but EEng has pretty much hit on everything I would have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? So why is there a news report on the "oldest" marathoner then, but not the tallest : http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/sport/oldest-marathoner/ Makila 19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a little off topic, but the answer is that being tall isn't an impediment to running a marathon (it's very beneficial if you have the right build, as you have a longer stride), whereas being old is. That's why it's so notable for a 100 year old (assuming that's his actual age) to run a marathon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blade, we're at the nine-colon indent level, and I'm told that at ten Wikipedia's servers start to overheat. "Makila" (whose real username appears to be User:petervermaelen) will probably say something else next, and if so just let him have the last word. It's a waste of time continuing to engage him on this, because short people will never get over their jealously of tall people, because even if they live to be 100, or 110, they will never get any taller, and they know that. EEng (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent to avoid server meltdown. David in DC (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makila is my nickname on the internet, while Peter is my real name. Any issues with that? Okay. So I have the last word? Fine. First of all, we are not against "tall people". You asked why "we don't have articles on people simply for being the tallest or shortest in a geographic area." We don't have articles on people simply for being the tallest or shortest person in a given geographical area, so why should it apply to longevity? There are two reasons. One is that there is not significant media coverage. The other reason is the one you give: being tall isn't an impediment whereas being old is. That's why it's so notable for a 100 year old (assuming that's his actual age) to run a marathon. According to your own answer, being extremely old is "so notable." So, we agree... (P.S.: we can live with a "merge" but I would argue that we can have mini-bios for "oldest living persons" like Stella Nardari and a standalone article for the oldest Italian person ever. Mini-bios are for persons with not enough notability for a standalone article, but Venere Pizzinato Papo's article meets the "general notability guideline" and so we can have a standalone for her. Makila 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Despite the feeling I'm gonna regret this...
  • I personally find it annoying when an editor's signature presents something totally different than the username displayed in change histories and other lists.
  • Look, you can't say "we can live with a merge" and then go on to say Venere Pizzinato Papo should have a standalone article, because Venere Pizzinato Papo is the subject of this AfD, and is therefore the subject you just said could be merged. So which is it?
EEng (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(see below): Apparently Makila didn't try the experiment himself because if he had [1] he would have been led to List of Italian supercentenarians where Pizzinato is duly listed. The question here is whether she should have her own article. Though no doubt she was a sweet old lady and somebody's beloved cousin or aunt, she doesn't seem to have done anything worth noting in her life, other than prolong it -- an achievement justifying memorialization in the "List of", and nothing more. EEng (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but if I search for the oldest Italian, I want to find more than just a name + a list, telling me, she was the oldest. And that is what I will get if her article would be deleted. A name without any explanations. Makila 04:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would completely agree with you if there were anything of interest to tell about her life that isn't already in the table. Apart from her age at death and the fact that she was an Austrian by birth, there is absolutely nothing in her bio that has any encyclopedic value. --Crusio (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A biographical sketch of each oldster could be included in the existing tables of the "List of" articles. In fact, if one is interested in e.g. why some people live longer, that would be more useful than scores of scattered stubs, and anyway the data available on most of these people is limited for obvious reasons. 11:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I apologize as I was typing from memory when I said the above about mini-bios. I wouldn't be able to quickly confirm this. However, I think EEng below said it all for me: "Of course, if there's something really worth saying about the person's, which can't be fit into the tables and yet doesn't lend notability for a separate article (though I predict there will be very few cases of this) then the table can #anchorlink to a minibio below. Or where there's a photo available the table can #anchorlink to that too, and the bottom of the article can have a nice gallery of pictures, each caption carrying one or two interesting facts that don't fit in the tables..." I can see how the mini-bios would be a great solution to this, although the format may benefit from a better way of displaying a number of mini-bios (something better than what we currently see at List of supercentenarians from the United States). That was my concern with mini-bios, but right now, I have no qualms with what Leoj83 has done at List of Italian supercentenarians. CalvinTy 20:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best solution? I think the best solution - perhaps this have already been mentioned - would be to have mini-bios in the article List of Italian supercentenarians. A new section called People. This is where Pizzinato's bio could be moved to. (Someone could also "go back in time" and transfer bios from recently deleted pages of other Italian sc's, like Dighero-Zolezzi) --Leoj83 (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and created the above mentioned section and added Dighero-Zolezzi, as a start. This article (List of Italian Supercentenarians) need this section anyway, no matter what we decide regarding Pizzinato. --Leoj83 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I add my blessing to Leoj83, BNL, Blade. Re Leoj83's bold change: It seems to me that all or almost all of the info in the Dighero-Zolezzi mini-bio is either already in the tables (e.g. birthdate) or could be represented (and more usefully at that) by careful extension of the tables and templates already in use: when she became the oldest, "predecessor/successor" for this and that record, cause of death, birthplace. That makes even these minibios unnecessary as well. Of course, if there's something really worth saying about the person's, which can't be fit into the tables and yet doesn't lend notability for a separate article (though I predict there will be very few cases of this) then the table can #anchorlink to a minibio below. Or where there's a photo available the table can #anchorlink to that too, and the bottom of the article can have a nice gallery of pictures, each caption carrying one or two interesting facts that don't fit in the tables e.g. Fred Flintstone, a WWI veteran[1] and lifelong stamp collector,[2] hang-gliding at 108. I don't intend to get further involved in these longevity-topic disputes (they never never die, it seems), so good luck to you guys. EEng (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Italian supercentenarians per Leoj83's bold change. CalvinTy 20:57, 18 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Venere_Pizzinato&oldid=1136466601"