Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Ringier


 * 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. Redirect was suggested, but there is no target, i.e., no article where her name appears. MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Anna Ringier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable supercentenarian. Clear failure of WP:GNG as the only reference (that isn't a dead link) is to a WP:ROUTINE obituary. Having removed all the unsourced statements, we see nothing in this article that isn't already present at List of Swiss supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple reliable sources. I restored the reference that CommanderLinx deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall deleting a reference but anyway. The first three references go to the same site (suggesting local coverage only). The fourth mentions her in a sentence (and is about someone else and mentions Ringer in a trivial passing) while the last one is an obituary which looks similar to the first reference. Doesn't look like significant coverage to me. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Neue Zürcher Zeitung is the Swiss national newspaper on par with the New York Times, it has "a reputation as a high quality newspaper and [is] the Swiss newspaper of record". Calling it "local coverage" is just ignorance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be a great source, but it just shows she fails WP:SIGCOV if half of the sources that cover her go to the same website (with the remaining: one is a trivial mention and the other two are obituaries). I've removed the unsourced longevity trivia and this article is now left with a name, age, country, that she was the oldest living Swiss and that she had a husband, children and grandkids. Really nothing of interest here that couldn't be easily summarized in the table at List of Swiss supercentenarians. Also note that the guidelines at WP:WOP and WP:NOPAGE state she would be better off on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are showing incredible regional bias. If the New York Times had two articles on someone while living, then an obituary, everyone would agree that it met WP:GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There is no demand that they be independent of each other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard Arthur Norton, observe footnote 3 of WP:GNG:
 * Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
 * The source "Oldest Swiss woman reveals her secrets" explicitly states at the bottom that it is based on the earlier NZZ interview, i.e., "Der Tod macht mir keine Angst, es ist ja Zeit". The two news stories in Neue Zuercher Zeitung and News.ch. 4 were both explicitly attributed to the Swiss news agency SDA and are virtually identical. The Blick source is not an obituary in any sense of the word. It's a 97 word news snippet announcing her death with a sentence devoted to the fact that although her last name was Ringier, she was no relation to the publisher of Blick and ending with a 4-word quote from the earlier interview.  The guidelines are by no means as categoric as you assert. In conjunction with this is that she is is notable for one thing, having been the oldest woman in Switzerland for two years and then dying. Neither that nor the minuscule amount of coverage, even in her native country, are grounds for a stand-alone article in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per CommanderLinx and probably qualifies for a speedy delete as a creation by block evading sock, User:104.56.23.57. See also my comments above concerning the lack of coverage—two virtually identical brief news articles announcing her death, both from the same news agency, 1 even briefer, and two versions of the same interview. Note that the articles on her death are news stories not obituaries, because there was nothing noteworthy to recount about her life apart from the fact that it was long. Voceditenore (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources that are clearly about the subject clearly satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the argument that someone happened to be the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area holds no water; or at least it has since outside editors have wrested the topic out of the control of the disturbingly large group of SPAs who treat this as their little fiefdom. The sources are absolutely unremarkable, if you changed the age to some other number that happened to have fewer than 3 digits there would be no argument here at all. Happening to avoid the reaper for an unusually long time is not inherently notable, and the total lack of nontrivial coverage makes her clearly non-notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep More can be added as information is found. Any information on her diet? Freda Martial (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The Blade's analysis is spot on. And Voceditenore's point re: speedy makes a good deal of sense, too, although the keep votes here probably are a technical bar to speedy deletion now. If so, that's a shame.  This (and a whole bunch of other) actions by this now blocked-editor, one of the many socks of an editor blocked earlier, ought not be rewarded.  We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, collaboratively. If this disruptive editor's gambit is successful, he/she and other like-minded longevity hobbyists are bound to be encouraged to continue their disruptions. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking about? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:104.56.23.57, User:DN-boards1, and lord knows what other socks and followers-on. David in DC (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see here for the edit that started the merry-go-round on this particular article. If you review the IP editor's multiple similar edits on the same day, you'll see the pattern.  It's enough to make a good-faith contributor lose their lunch.  And it ought not be enabled. David in DC (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect WP:NOPAGE. "... when the streets of Lenzburg were unpaved and there were no cars for transportation ... life spanned three centuries" is typical filler nonsense for this topic area. Blade's post above should be framed on the wall at the WOP page.  E  Eng  14:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability (for essentially the same reasons as stated by the nominator, Voce, and the Blade). Note that the list article on Swiss supercentenarians no longer exists -- it is a redirect to List of European supercentenarians.  The subject does not appear in that latter article, so there is no appropriate target for redirect.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB, WP:ROUTINE coverage of human interest stories. ~ RobTalk 18:52, 16 June 2016 (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.