Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nera Corsi


 * 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Procedural Keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and there are no editors arguing for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Nera Corsi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It was created by a hoax/NOTHERE user who has since been blocked. I've previously AFD'd their pages. This particular page is more complex, as the hoax creator has crafted it deceptively. They have mashed up various sources that mention the subject's name, added historical images, and done everything possible to make it difficult to easily verify the authenticity of the claims. After checking the cited sources, I found that some of them do not support the facts stated in the article. Some sources, such as, don't even mention the subject at all. I also checked Wikipedia Library and couldn't find any organized or in-depth source detailing her life.

It appears that a person named Nera Corsi did exist in the 15th century, but they did not lead the life described in this article. In summary, this is a hoax article that combines sources and images mentioning the subject's name to create a veneer of legitimacy but is filled with misinformation and fabricated stories. Even if the subject was notable, this article cannot be relied upon as factual due to its pervasive inaccuracies. As per new findings, I'm withdrawing this nom. But I'd still question the notability of the subject, agreeing with User:3 kids in a trenchcoat's opinions regarding the subject's notability. X (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility,  and Italy.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: So I've only done a fairly cursory search, and only in English, but just about everything in the article checks out. This book from 2018 says on page 20 that Nera's tomb is "the only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence", which is probably her main claim to significance. On page 132 the author says that "the function of the Sassetti Chapel was to house the tombs of Francesco Sassetti and his wife Nera Corsi", and a caption on page 133 dates her tomb specifically to 1485. Pages 31 and 32 also briefly talk about her portrayal in Domenico Ghirlandaio's portrait of her, but this isn't really relevant to the article.


 * Then this book from 2000 and this one from 1981 (only available in snippet view) both briefly describe Nera's tomb and note that its decoration appears to be a pun on her name; they don't say anything about her life, but they at least corroborate the image gallery currently in the article, so it's not a hoax.


 * This book, which is cited in the article, was the last source I checked, but I'm putting it here because most of what the article says about Nera's life is in here. It shows her in a family tree of the Sassetti family, with dates of birth, death, and marriage for her and her children. It doesn't really seem to say anything else about her, though. So it seems that the first three sentence-paragraphs in the "life" section of the article are sourced from basically a chart. It's not a bad source; it's good for establishing the dates of birth and death and whatnot, but I don't think it's really a significant mention.


 * I could also find some other (prose, non-chart) information about her life in other sources: this book (first page of chapter 11; I can't see the page number] briefly mentions that she was 15 years old when she married Francesco Sassetti in 1458 (he was apparently 37 years old then, ewww) and that she came from a prominent Florentine family that was "also closely allied with the Medici". This book from 1990, on the other hand, says her family came from Fiesole, so I'm not sure which is more accurate. Finally, this website I see that her son Teodoro apparently died in 1478 and then she gave birth to a second son also named Teodoro a few months later. I'm not sure that this site really constitutes a good source, though.


 * So the bulk of Nera's current article can be traced back to sources that predate the article's creation. The only parts I could not verify are (A) the claim that her tomb is "the only woman's tomb not only in Florence but in all of Italy from the 15th century", which seems like a massive overstating of what Maria DePrano said (which I quoted above); (B) the immediately following claim that her tomb has become "a historical and cultural landmark", which probably applies more to the Sassetti Chapel as a whole than her tomb specifically; and (C) some of the specifics about her family, like her father being a powerful banker or her being born in Florence. Most of the article's last paragraph I also didn't bother checking, but it's mostly background about the chapel's construction and it can probably also be verified, possibly already in DePrano's book.


 * So the article is not a hoax, but I'm not sure if it meets notability guidelines. "The only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence" seems like an overly-narrow qualifier to me, and none of the sources contains much more than a trivial mention of Nera herself. It's mostly related to her tomb, or to the painting of her, or her marriage and family. While I would personally rather see the article kept, I think a merge into the Sassetti Chapel article would probably make the most sense. However, I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for 15th-century Italian noblewomen, and she may satisfy those. I also haven't checked any Italian-language sources, and those might have a more in-depth biography of her. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This article is most decidedly not a hoax. Talk about a failure of WP:BEFORE. Even a cursory search on Google Scholar or JSTOR would reveal that much. There are dozens of high quality sources. I'll add a few to the article to make my point, but this isn't something I'm really interested in editing. On the other hand nom should consider withdrawing this AfD, as it's extraordinarily misguided. Central and Adams (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.