Talk:Cecilia Seghizzi

Supercentenarian

Opening this thread in the hopes of derailing the edit war. I think I understand the issue here. We have a source for her birthday, but, arguably, no competent source for her being a supercentenarian. The question is simple: is math enough to use the term supercentenarian? Or do we need something more? David in DC (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't need anything more: anybody over the age of 110 is a supercentenarian by definition. Now, should that factoid be mentioned in the lead sentence? We can have a debate about that. To me, it's not a defining characteristic of the person, because Ms Seghizzi is notable for other things than her age. — JFG ^talk 20:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds like the issue here may not be about original research or reliable sourcing, but rather about undue weight and what belongs in a lead paragraph. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no source which describes her as a supercentenarian, therefore she is not notable as a supercentenarian. The lede is for describing what someone is notable for, therefore until there is some evidence that she is notable for being a supercentenarian this should not be included in the lede. As for whether this should be included in the remainder of the article, that is debatable rather than automatic. Supercentenarian is not a term in use by the general public, therefore merely turning 110 is only significant for followers of longevity. It is certainly arguable that this is OR, and therefore a BLP violation, to describe someone as a supercentenarian without a reliable source. I'm not overly concerned about removing it from the article until such time as there is such a source, but would support any apparent consensus in that direction. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur. I think the categories Category:Female supercentenarians and Category:Italian supercentenarians are enough; no need for article text until sources start writing about this fact. — JFG ^talk 08:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The two above categories are enough. The article shouldn't mention that she is a supercentenarian until reliable sources start writing about that fact. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in the text, can it still be tagged with the catagories, or would striking the one-sentence "supercentenarian" subsection require also striking the cats? David in DC (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It would seem from Wikipedia:Categorization of people that a person should only be categorized for the notability they are known for. As Seghizzi is not notable for being a supercentenarian (yet) she should not be categorized as such. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. People over 110 are placed in the supercentenarian categories as a matter of routine classification. Keep the cats. — JFG ^talk 14:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)