Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing


 * 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 merge to List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbella Ewing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's not clear to me that this woman is sufficiently notable for here. I've found archived versions of the two articles mentioned but overall she *was* (for some unknown time period) the world's oldest African American person. Otherwise, she *was* at best the second oldest person from the state of Texas, the second oldest American and the third oldest person in the world at that time (now off the top 100 overall). The two sources are both local human interest stories about her with the diamond article basically providing the biographical details while the other only the ranking that were relevant in 2008 when she died. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not seeing the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N or justify a stand-alone article. Canadian   Paul  17:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or marge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. Arbella Ewing was 3rd oldest living person, 2nd oldest American as well as second oldest person who died in 2008. It is an important record holder, meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I think that Hermina Dunz's page is should be deleted than this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate that article for deletion. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great idea I found it was AfD'd this month a year ago but no one commented, so we can try again. Oh and this one should be deleted' per WP:NOPAGE and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Noting her race is problematic as I've yet to see a stat for the oldest Latino, Korean American, or white American person. Keeping score by race is pretty offensive to me.  Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And the scientific GRG is still calling people "Oriental", and thinks "Hispanic" is a race. EEng (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Last year, not last month. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG as no sources demonstrate significant coverage or notability. All but one of sources are from Texas which would all be local coverage since she retired to the area. The last is a GRG table which does nothing to establish notability. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep An exceptionally strong claim of notability, with the claim supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to create an appropriate article about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What strong claim? There's nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being a supercentenarian makes you notable". I'll also state again that every source (excluding the GRG table) is from Texas which would be local coverage because she lived there. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, surpassing 110 years is a strong claim of notability. It doesn't in and of itself make you notable, it's the coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that establishes notability. These sources provided well surpass the minimum required. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There's nothing encyclopedic here. The lede has more information about other people than it does about the subject. It's all about where the subject stood in relation to other especially long-lived people in a mythical competition to breathe longer. The body is similarly bereft of anything that belongs in an encyclopedia. Her family considered her a gem and attributed her longevity to positive thinking. Her parents were from Mississippi. She broke her hip at one of her last birthday parties and wound up in a nursing home. She lived, worked, married, had a child and died. Far from "an exceptionally strong claim of notability", there's barely any at all. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. What we have here is profoundly insignificant coverage, and all for the non-inherently notable attribute of deferring the visit of the Grim Reaper a bit longer than most. Birthday greetings and an obit, plus a mention on a GRG table of old people who died in 2008 just doesn't cut it. Arguing in the alternative, if others think this null set of a subject does scrape by our general notability guideline, (although how, I cannot imagine) then WP:NOPAGE counsels that a list and not a stand-alone article is the proper resolution here. David in DC (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete What David said, particularly NOPAGE. Utterly empty article almost entirely about other people. "The people close to her attributed her longevity to positive thinking" -- oh, brother. EEng (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep 114 is an extreme age that is certainly notable. The odds of reaching 114 are very slim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevityresearcher (talk • contribs)
 * All of the top 100 names at Oldest_people have reached the age of 114 and there's still more I'm certain. It doesn't seem slim enough to warrant a separate article for each person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8 years less then the currently documented record holder? Do we automatically have pages for people that are not even in the top 100 fastest runners?  Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Odds of a thing happening are absolutely irrelevant when determining the result to this AfD. This is why !voting is evil. The result should be based on our wikipedia guidelines. !Votes that have nothing to do with that should be discounted.David in DC (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Alansohn's argument: Arbella Ewing gained coverage well outside her local area in reliable sources. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States: Ewing got about a paragraph of coverage in this book . Additionally, she was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records is frequently listed in academic studies of longevity such as this one  and got coverage in Minnesota, West Virginia, South Africa and Australia based newspapers when she died (these articles can be found by typing her name into LexisNexis). (Most of the newspaper coverage was very brief (often only a sentence or two long) and repeated the same language). I ultimately support a merge since she has gotten a lot of attention, but there is not a lot of information from reliable sources that can be used to write an article. Ewing's article can be merged without a loss of encyclopedic information, so I believe that this would be the best outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles which "repeat the same language" (i.e. wire stories) count as just one for notability purposes. EEng (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep There is something to be said about how she is covered in mainstream press for her longevity, which doesn't exactly lend itself to lots of coverage outside of that one event. Delta13C (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per notability guidelines and WP:NOPAGE. First, a handful of human interest pieces from local newspapers and an obituary do not indicate notability. If it did, then every used car salesman in any small town would become notable after they passed away. Second, this is a permanent stub comprised of nothing but a DOB, DOD, a single bullet-point regarding her being the oldest yada yada in yada yada, and a bunch of trivial unencyclopedic information. It's classic list material. ~ RobTalk 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best and I would've also accepted redirecting to the list of supercentenarians as regardless there's simply not anything for a better solid separate article. SwisterTwister   talk  08:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP1E, known only for being old, and not even very notable for that. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 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.