Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Stevenson


 * 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. The consensus is that as Stevenson was recognised as the world's oldest person for a short time, they meet the notability criteria and should remain in Wikipedia --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Alice Stevenson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom 5-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable GRG (2) and OHB, and one unlinked Guardian article not likely to support most of the WP article. WP:BIO failure alluded in 2007 at article talk. JJB 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources used are from the GRG and Rejuvenation Research, a peer-reviewed journal (reliable source). The GRG itself is also a reliable source on longevity issues since its data is used by Guinness World Records. The article also has a reliable source from The Guardian. Therefore I do not know what you allude to when you say there is "no more than one reliable source". You appear to have set up dozens of AFDs on similar articles and have addressed them with the same statement. The statement that you opened this AFD up with does not match the article that you are nominating for deletion. Please highlight where the WP:OR and the WP:SYN are. As with many other articles, the reasons you give do not stand because they are not relevant to the article. Crusading your way through longevity-related articles is not a way to solve any personal issues that you may or may not have with editors involved in these sorts of articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Welcome Siamese; your points need separate rebuttals.
 * First, please thread comments, rather than replying earlier in threads than notes that preceded you (now corrected).
 * It appears your statement is the one that doesn't match the article, because the article doesn't cite Rej Res in any place.
 * Please see RSN: GRG spreadsheet lines are unreliable primary coredumps.
 * Your concern that GWR employs GRG was also proposed and rejected at that link.
 * You did not answer my concern that the Guardian is unlinked contrary to WP:V.
 * Incidentally, Guardian is also 1985 and thus probably primarily about Williams rather than Stevenson.
 * For "reliable sources" perhaps you would prefer "independent, nonconflicted reliable sources", as it usually means.
 * I have only begun 19 carefully chosen AFDs so far (yes I assisted recent deletions begun by 3 other editors).
 * I abandoned total boilerplating in this salvo in favor of providing article-specific reasons in each case.
 * All 5 sentences are OR/SYN because unreliably sourced:
 * Birth and death dates may appear in Guardian, but unlinked article is probably not about Stevenson.
 * "Oldest recognised living person after death of Mateo".
 * "Record broken by Williams in 1985" may be in Guardian in some form, but who is their primary?
 * "Succeeded in title by Watkins", as if "oldest recognised living" is a "title" in any reliable source.
 * "Last person born before 1863" is IMHO an Ryoung122 special.
 * As already stated, my reasons are relevant to the article, and, as rebutted, yours are not.
 * Please do not paint my attempts to conform a sorely-neglected topic area to basic (NPOV) policy as "crusading".
 * Personal issues are not in play here, nor should they be brought in by guessing at my motives beyond policy compliance.
 * I generally respect your independent views. Please don't make so many errors at once. JJB 16:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The GRG discussion seems to me to be a case of flipping a coin 20 times until it comes up heads. Wikipedia is about to and fro between opposite sides to reach a suitable medium. This 'discussion' seems to be an undiplomatic one-sided argument against the GRG, and as a tangent from your disputes with User:RYoung122, who you interestingly make a personal remark about in this discussion - a user that you are currently in Arbitration against. Please remember that you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
 * Having unlinked articles is in no way contrary to WP:V. Wikipedia relies on sources that are available both online and offline. To solely rely on online sources would be recentism. As notability is not temporary and since the internet was not available in the 1970s, it is unsurprising that few citations are available online. Many other articles rely on offline material, such as books.
 * Birth and date deaths are given by the GRG (as is that she succeeded Mateo), and other such journals as Rejuvenation Research and Population: An English Selection. If the word "title" is not suitable, then you are free to edit the article to improve it. Generally the first step of any Wikipedian should be to help improve articles than nominate batches for deletion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The article's only reliable source is an unlinked article, which does not establish notability. Inclusion in lists is sufficient. Neptune 5000  ( talk ) 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and Neptune. The footnotes to GRG web pages and the external link to the OHB page are now-familiar hallmarks of longevity-cruftstubs. Neither is a reliable source. Charitably, they are primary sources, prohibited as the sole source for any information in an article, per WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Less charitably, they are not reliable sources because they are the self-published work of a cadre of niche enthusiasts. The pages display few, if any, of the attributes defined in WP:RS. The World's Oldest People wikiproject talk page is now host to an effort to prune back the worst of what's become a dreadfully dense  WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Please review the table of proposed and resolved afds there for recent similar discussions to this one. There's a reassuring sameness to the results. The gears grind slowly, but the system works. David in DC (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The GRG is considered reliable by Guinness World Records, the New York Times, the BBC, the Tokyo Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Comments about "cruftstubs" and "neither is a reliable source" are little more than opinionated defamation contrary to established fact. If you are unable to process this information correctly, then you are little more than a monkeywrench in the system...not only opposed to the established international system that determines notability for "world's oldest persons" but also against Wiki policy which grants the task of determining notability to "outside sources," NOT your personal opinion. As we saw on the Margaret Skeete AFD page, you offered personal opinions to denigrate the article. Is it too difficult for you to realize that this is similar to a "witch hunt," where for you or JJ or even those in 2007, all they can do is heap false accusations. In time, the 2007 cabal turned back when they realized they were wrong. How long will it take for you to do the same?76.17.118.157 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Was the recognised oldest living person in the world and oldest Briton ever. A notable person. Amply documented. — Cam46136 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam46136 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the first and last of these nine AFDs, applicable to all and intended to be read by all closers. I am too angry at WP's systemic failure, as shown in these AFDs, for me to provide the full analysis necessary. The short form is that there is significant evidence of canvassing, and that I will need to present it to a different forum than to the AFD closer(s). The majority of these AFDs have had not a single keep comment provide a reliable source, and in the remainder there has been no evidence that a new source or two confers notability (except for David in DC's judgment in one case). Those who have commented at the WikiProject have all agreed with the formulation of GNG that makes all of these articles still deletes, or potential merges in a couple cases. Any appearance of consensus, if it still remains after the evidence of canvassing, SPAs, arguments to avoid, and distractions ad nauseam is accounted for, is the result of an endemic, years-long infiltration of walled-garden builders into WP, as documented (in part) at the open ArbCom case that discusses this very behavior. I have manifold reasons for my conviction that these are neither consensus keeps nor nonconsensus keeps but in fact GNG failures that should be deleted or merged and will be; one reason that comes to mind is that my last salvo of 8 AFDs with exactly the same GNG failures were all deleted, in accord with the many many AFDs linked in the nom. However, I rest secure in my knowledge that WP does the right thing in the long run, even if any closer is not able to appreciate all the facts I have on hand to bear on these cases. JJB 06:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. World's oldest person in 1973 meets the definition of notability, even if the sources were from the pre-internet age. What needs to be done is to tag the article for sourcing, and to give the article creator a courtesy month to upgrade it.

As for JJ's comments above, there is clear evidence of HIS canvassing and recruiting (such asking Grismaldo or DavidinDC to join), bullying, intimidating others, etc. For example, comments like this:

‘thank you, but you’re in the wrong place’ and ‘you’re part of a group and that doesn’t count’.

In reality, it's the other way around: most, if not all, of these people found supercentenarians through Wikipedia first, so if they later joined a group it is irrelevant.

Those are comments directed at other Wikipedia editors, rather than to the discussion of the article notability.

Throw in mass-nominations for deletion, i-voting for his own nominations, self-quoting his own policy proposals which haven't been accepted, and you have a smoke-and-mirrors funhouse, we might as well call JJ' world.

Because JJ believes that humans live to 950, as per the Bible, therefore he's attempting to delete all articles on age-verified supercentenarians.

Ryoung 122 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung 122 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Once the world's oldest person. Don't see why it can't be kept. DHanson317 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that, as a person who was given credit, at one time, as being the world's oldest person, albeit only for a few months in 1973, she was notable even among supercentenarians. Mandsford 02:22, 13 December 2010 (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.