- 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. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 10:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Beatrice Farve
AfDs for this article:
- Beatrice Farve ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means) and the second oldest American and second oldest African-American isn't sufficiently notable. Of the five sources here, two are non-reliable links to geneaology.com and the other two are WP:ROUTINE obituaries that don't evidence WP:N. Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to an appropriate longevity list. The two census data search links are prohibited orginal research. One of the obits is a copyright violation posted to a blog. The article itself contains nothing of encyclopedic value. Take your pick WP:NOPAGE, lack of reliable sources, fails general notability guidelines, fails WP:BIO. David in DC ( talk) 16:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- What list? There is no list of the second any of those. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- The
bit bucket list.
EEng (
talk) 22:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to here David in DC ( talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The
bit bucket list.
EEng (
talk) 22:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- What list? There is no list of the second any of those. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete In answer to David-in-the-capital's challenge, I pick NOPAGE. EEng ( talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Most other people who was world's second-oldest person have articles. (as an example, Mamie Eva Keith, Eunice Sanborn, Mary Josephine Ray, etc.) Many third place following people also have an article. Being the second oldest person in the world of 7 billion people is not notable? I think this article is meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. in addition, this article is created in the other languages of Wikipedia.-- Inception2010 ( talk) 11:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- See WP:WAX (solution may be to delete the ones you mentioned) and WP:OTHERLANGS (Other language Wikipedia's are both unreliable sources and don't necessarily establish notability). Not good arguments for keeping this one. CommanderLinx ( talk) 16:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)— CommanderLinx ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Point taken. I've thus listed those pages for deletion. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see evidence of the type of coverage that would satisfy the criteria for a stand-alone article under WP:N. Canadian Paul 18:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Oldest living person in Georgia as well as the 2nd oldest living person in the world at the time of her death. Several sources provide sufficent coverage. And the nominator is just playing stupid because he knows exactly what "verified" means. A person's age is "verified" if their age has been confirmed by documentation from several points in their life (from childhood until old age) that support the person's claimed age being true. 930310 ( talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- What sources? CommanderLinx ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete while impressive to live that long, I'm not seeing and other claim to nobility or notability. Legacypac ( talk) 10:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Routine coverage. Polequant ( talk) 14:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as another "born, lived a really long time, died" article. Longevity should not confer notability unless something notable was achieved in those years. Blackmane ( talk) 23:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep World's second-oldest human is good enough. I pick YESPAGE. -- 153.151.83.197 ( talk) 09:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment I'm not sure why so many longevity articles are being nominated for AfD. It is an accomplishment to live for such a long time and it's an area of interest to some. Just saying. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 01:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's been a problematic area and there's been a spotlight on these articles. Since about half (being generous) are being redirected at least, it's an indication that stand-alone articles aren't in line with current policy. I see this similar to the old fictional or Pokemon characters or the like disputes: we're moving from individual pages to general lists. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 04:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you see a problem, do you not think that a more sensible option would have been to have a more general discussion about what subjects do and don't deserve an article, assess the general consensus, and then move forward from there, rather than nominating countless articles for deletion? --
Ollie231213 (
talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- You mean like the conversation that was attempted before and during
this 2010 ARBCOM case. Or in the five years since. Check out the case and the WOP project archives and talk pages. You'll see that the proposal you make has been attempted, numerous times, with no meeting of the minds between the wikipedians and the longevity hobbyists. As I understand it, the professional longevity folks have abandoned Wikipedia, in favor of creating their own wiki using the wikia platform.
David in DC (
talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- That was five whole years ago. --
Ollie231213 (
talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please review more carefully. There have been motions in the case since the first sanctions were rendered, one motion was decided earlier this year. David in DC ( talk) 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- That was five whole years ago. --
Ollie231213 (
talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- What should the discussion be? "I think these articles should be redirected or deleted"/"No, I disagree" on them in a group and then the same thing individually? There's been a group of claim that WP:BIO already covers these biographies (I don't think anyone really believes that) and then another asking for a WP:BIO-specific consensus but no one actually does the work of proposing one (short of one character doing it for Tillman's AFD). It's not everyone's job to go through rounds and rounds of making up our own set of arguments to delay what we think should be done. Why don't the supporters of these biographies evaluate them and see if there's any they think are problematic? There must be some in Category:Longevity claims that even you don't think have any reliable sources that support their claims. Why don't you propose a notability criteria that actually reflects these discussions here? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- You mean like the conversation that was attempted before and during
this 2010 ARBCOM case. Or in the five years since. Check out the case and the WOP project archives and talk pages. You'll see that the proposal you make has been attempted, numerous times, with no meeting of the minds between the wikipedians and the longevity hobbyists. As I understand it, the professional longevity folks have abandoned Wikipedia, in favor of creating their own wiki using the wikia platform.
David in DC (
talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you see a problem, do you not think that a more sensible option would have been to have a more general discussion about what subjects do and don't deserve an article, assess the general consensus, and then move forward from there, rather than nominating countless articles for deletion? --
Ollie231213 (
talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's been a problematic area and there's been a spotlight on these articles. Since about half (being generous) are being redirected at least, it's an indication that stand-alone articles aren't in line with current policy. I see this similar to the old fictional or Pokemon characters or the like disputes: we're moving from individual pages to general lists. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 04:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. In the absence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources about the subject per WP:GNG, the default position should be to redirect these "oldest person" articles to an appropriate list, where a description of a sentence or two may be added in addition to the subject's name, date of birth, place of birth, date of death and place of death -- assuming those datapoints can be reliably verified and sourced per WP:V and WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Really? The 2nd oldest person in the world isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 6 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.-- Uietueps ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 'Keep A strong claim of notability, with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to back it up, in an article providing significant coverage of the subject. Alansohn ( talk) 20:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails SIGCOV. NOPAGE applies as there is insufficient encyclopedic material to justify a stand alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 10:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.