Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ida Frabboni-Saletta

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. Consensus is that there is not enough reliable source material to expand the existing material into a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. -- Jreferee t/c 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Frabboni-Saletta

Does not pass WP:BIO. The only English source for her existence is grg.org and of the 21 Ghits, many are mirrors and none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in List of living supercentenarians. She may be the oldest Italian one day, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cheers, CP 02:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Clarification: My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present at the list of living supercentenarians. Cheers, CP 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note For Closing Admin: User:Bart Versieck has posted a message on the World's Oldest People Forum telling people to come to this page and vote against deletion: "Please, all of you, do vote against deletion of it at this page." In case the message is removed by the user, a screen shot can be provided privately. Cheers, CP 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert already did this before me many times for other articles about supercentenarians in danger of being deleted, people. Extremely sexy 11:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't tell people 'how' to vote, I told people there 'was' a vote. There is a difference. Ryoung122 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: No, but since you are in fact the moderator of a yahoo group about the world's oldest people, it's logical you then always imply to vote against deletion of the article mentioned, hence. Extremely sexy 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Gerontology Research Group publishes here a table in the peer-reviewed journal Rejuvenation Research. She's already one of the oldest women alive (33rd or so). --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Verifiable, per Dhartung above, but there are no sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) with which to actually write an article or to say anything about her at all. Once she starts getting some media attention (say, in Italy), then we can write an article on her. Until then, per nom, the single entry in List of living supercentenarians is sufficient. Most of the other super-oldsters with articles have at least have had a profile done about them in a newspaper or something. cab 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information besides the bare bones for a supercentenarian article, her mention on List of living supercentenarians is sufficient enough. --RandomOrca2 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Keep, but improve. - *Comment. The bottom-line issue with this article is NOT that she COULD be a 'notable' person...it's that someone started an article prematurely, and no effort has been made to upgrade it or fill it out. In regards to how old someone must be to be 'notable,' there is generally a sliding-scale: the older, the more likely one is to be considered notable. However, there must also be a degree of subjectivity. Note the list of living supercentenarians covers the objective aspect of extreme ages: anyone validated to be 110 or older is listed, regardless of whether they are 'still alive' or a bedridden vegetable. The primary purposes of adding additional, individual articles are twofold: one is to note a person's individual records achievement (i.e. 'oldest person,' 'state recordholder,' etc); two is to flesh out a more subjective understanding. Thus, we can say that Asa Takii was the oldest person in Japan in 1998 and, at 114, one of the top 100 oldest people ever. But Marie-Rose Mueller doesn't meet any personal-records criteria. Yet the article there might still be arguably notable because she provides a good subjective case, a qualitative analysis of a person at age 111. For example, Ms. Mueller doesn't live in a nursing home; doesn't like to watch TV; takes few prescription pills, etc. Ms. Mueller might even be a good article candidate due to her history: born in the tiny part of Alsace retained by France after France lost most to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war, her existence is a living link to an almost-forgotten aspect of history. With Ida Frabboni-Saletta, someone COULD make a convincing case IF she were well-cited in the news AND the article here gave a good subjective history (i.e. born in what is now Austria-Hungary, migrated during war, etc). But we don't have that. All we have is a restatement of everything we know from the current list of living supercentenarians. Even worse, however, is that when people see no redlink, they are often moved to create an article. With a perma-stub attached an no sourcing, this article's existence actually makes it less likely for someone to realize that more could be done here (if it need be done). Finally, this article was created at a time when Ms. Frabboni-Saletta was THOUGHT to be the oldest living person in Italy. Later someone older was discovered. Yet Ms. Saletta is still living, so this article could improve and her notability could increase. Thus, I would recommend: *Delete or Keep but Improve. We could either delete this article now, without prejudice (allowing its recreation later, should circumstances change), or we could keep the stub, but note that it needs to be expanded or risks future deletion. -- Ryoung122 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as per Robert Young, with the addition of an expansion tag though, as he also suggested then. Extremely sexy 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Statistician 22:47, 01.10.2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, explain your reasoning, as AfD is not a vote. Cheers, CP 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course, no legitimate claim to notability here. Congratulations to Ms. Frabboni-Saletta for her longevity, but that's not the kind of thing that gets you into an encyclopedia... PrinceGloria 10:05, 2 October 2007 (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.