Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Angiola Borrino

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. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Angiola Borrino

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Virtually totally primary sourced. Was draftified in the hopes of improvement, and then moved back without improvement. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is basically a personal novel of sorts, primary sourced only multiple times over, and search results don't bring anything up that could easily improve the article. Pretty blatantly fails WP:GNG and looks to have been fluffed to mask that. Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spent a few minutes looking at this. I agree that there are no good secondary English-language sources that cover Virginia Angiola Borrino. In [1], Borrino is referred to (unnamed) as a "well-known Italian paediatrician", which suggests the existence of additional non-English historical sources: "Adalbert Czerny (1863–1941) had also published a work on infant nutrition and nutritional disturbances (1906) (Schabel 1995, pp. 42–43), and a collection of lectures, Der Arzt als Erzieher, 1908(The Physician as educator: a handbook for doctors, mothers and teachers), which was translated into Italian in 1913 by a well-known Italian paediatrician with the title Il medico educatore del bambino: libro per medici, per le madri, per i maestri (Czerny 1913)." Clicking on a random reference in the Italian article, I found [2] (source from 1981, Google translated w/ attempted fixes): "The cultural setting was high from the start: the confemnzieri were university students or famous writers, and in addition to conferences there were courses in Italian literature, foreign literature, music, and childcare. For the latter I will mention the active, long collaboration of Angiola Borrino: pediatrician, university professor, chair holder in Perugia." A passing mention, but again evidence of potential further coverage. Overall, I might be inclined to say the article needs attention from an Italian-fluent expert, but probably meets the bar as far as historical notability goes. One could consider adding the template that says "this article could be expanded from the Italian language article". Suriname0 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, I see the draftify was quite recent. My vote is to move it back to draft space: the article clearly has merit, just needs more time. Suriname0 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Officially leaning Keep: Here's an English-language bio [3]. Just a paragraph, but quite focused on Borrino and her merits: "Angiola Borrino was the first woman Chief of a University Pediatric Ward." Suriname0 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need additional eyes on both the English-language and Italian-languages refs supporting notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, or move to draft. The Italian Wikipedia article seems to be somewhat more substantial, but not better sourced. Still, the opportunity should be provided for better sources in Italian to be found. BD2412 T 01:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just put a note in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Usually they are good about commenting, sourcing, and rescuing articles like this if possible. Maybe relist this one more time?4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made a couple of additions to the article. While it definitely needs to be cleaned up and subsections formatted better, the subject seems very plainly notable. She was a founding member of one of the premier medical institutions in Italy, not to mention her well covered work on infants and maternity research in the early 1900's. Silver seren^C 04:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With sources such as this (already cited), it looks to me as if she was one of the most important pediatric figures of her day. The presentation of the article could be improved but it is certainly not a candidate for removal. It is not surprising relatively few sources show up in Google searches. The internet did not begin to develop substantially until the 21st century.--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an English language abstract in this paper which demonstrates notability:
One hundred years ago, medical women's access to directing functions took place. For 42 years they had been practicing medical women in Italy, but they were relegated to marginal functions. In 1918 the lack of medical officers, determined by the prolongation of the Great War, the institutions of the time, even if dominated by a clearly masculine mentality had to entrust important tasks to women, and so, in 1918 Paola Zappa became the first hospital primary woman and in particular in pediatrics. The following year, again for the same reason, Angiola Borrino was appointed director of the Clinic and of the Pediatric Chair of the University of Siena, thus being the first in every medical specialty in Italy. After the emergency, not only the State did not reward these two women who had cooperated with their services to handle the difficult situation, but even, after the war, they were deprived for a few years of directing functions and boycotted by male colleagues who did not accept the role of the woman doctor in the managerial functions. In the study the biographies of the two women are analyzed and compared with those of men who lived in the same period to document the penalization suffered by women.

And, having recently had to defend another similar case of a pioneering female doctor from the same era, we see that, a century later, a systematic process of trying to shut out women continues. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient sources are available to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems clear she's notable for her work & institutional positions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the three independent quality sources added by ~~Ipigott~~ Silver seren. I agree that some of the primary sourced material could be trimmed, and that further secondary and tertiary sources would benefit the article. However, those are editorial concerns outside of AFD, and its clear the subject passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to...toot my own horn or anything like that, but I was the one that added three sources. >_>; Silver seren^C 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Smack forehead) I knew that. I just had a brain lapse. So sorry. Corrected above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added only serve to further cement notability. We have to use common sense sometimes when looking at these articles. I sympathize with the fact the sources are in Italian which means that it may be more difficult for some to understand but looking at her life and accomplishments and taking into account the era in which she is from should assist in coming to the conclusion she was notable for her time and notability, once established, is forever. --ARose Wolf 18:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Yupik (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a major figure and many sources are available. We cannot expect to compare her to a person that lived in the internet age, the availability of many sources for someone who died 1965 speaks for itself. --hroest 18:41, 14 July 2021 (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.