Lucia Laura Sangenito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not every supercentenarian needs an article. Wikipedia is not the "Guinness Book of World Records." Suggest deleting or redirecting to List of Italian supercentenarians. Junbeesh (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Junbeesh (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Anktjha (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above, sole claims to notability is her age. Wikishovel (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability whicu has been firmly established by the sources me and the other keep editor have added Wwew345t (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added a couple of short news items as sources, which should go some way to establish her notability with respect to Wikipedia, and I've moved the grg-supercentenarians.org links - which I would put more in the class of database / stats sites, like Soccerway is to football - to be external links. On the wider, non-Wikipedia, meaning of "notability" I'd say, actually, that to be the oldest living person in a country is not a far-fetched claim to notability. I might do a more focused search against Italian sources to see if there are additional ones that might flesh out the biographical stub a little more. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found a couple of english that help out as well Wwew345t (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is almost nothing in this article however the article was deleted immediately after it was created then put unto afd ID say give the creator some time to build the article up before we rush it into afd. after I added a couple sources I believe the subject now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that not every supercentenarian is notable enough to have an article but as this one is the oldest living person in Italy i feel like we should give people some time to flesh out the article with more sources before suggesting there arent enough to establish notability Wwew345t (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems a ip user has been deleting content in the page most likley to make easier to delete it Wwew345t (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now added another source that makes the article better https://longeviquest.com/2024/06/visiting-italys-second-oldest-resident-113-year-old-lucia-laura-sangenito/ it goes into her life story in great detail so it should help flesh out the article Wwew345t (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested. Of course a 'supercentarian' will genereate a certain amount of passing press coverage. This is not the kind of lasting covererage necessary to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its not just "passing coverage" she has bios on both the gerntolgy research group and Longeviquest the two biggest sources when it comes to supercentenarians the sources establish notability Wwew345t (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest doing a WP:BEFORE and count the amount of sources that have covered her Wwew345t (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Run of the mill and niche coverage. This individual is not in any way remarkable apart from having lived a long time.TheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage spans atleast 4 years of articles thats not exactly "run of the mill" Wwew345t (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have also added some sources and info to the article. There is coverage over time (I've so far found some from 2018), and in national newspapers as well as regional and local. She meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also note that the editor Anktjha (1st !vote above) has been identified as a sock and blocked - their !votes on other AfDs have been struck through. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. -Sunny365days (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems like the most appropriate way to handle the above discussion and nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - respectfully to TheLongTone, I submit that neither the subject nor its coverage is run-of-the-mill: they are not common, everyday, ordinary items. Nine independent, reliable, secondary sources, of which eight contain significant coverage about the subject is surely sufficient to establish notability, and the topic does not appear in what Wikipedia is not. My firm position is that there are strong policy reasons to keep, and no strong policy reasons to delete, merge or redirect. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Article should be deleted for the time being, but a fair compromise for the longevity fan-boys, is to redirect until she genuinely becomes notable enough for a standalone Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:293E:3400:400A:C094:7752:92FE (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  this user is likley the same ip switching troll that tried to delete this pages bio twice so I'd take this vote with a grain of salt Wwew345t (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the re derect votes 1 is a blocked sock 1 is a ip troll who deleted the bio of the page twice voting on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote and the others are "rotuine coverage" votes desptie the fact that the coverage has been demonstrated to be not routine Wwew345t (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]