Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker


 * 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 no consensus. Would certainly benefit from more sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:BLP.  Dei zio  talk 20:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Edna Parker
7th oldest person in the world at one point in time is not wikipedic imo. Dave 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' seventh oldest now. Uncle Kitia`
 * Weak keep. She's one of the 10 oldest living people on Earth; that makes her pretty notable. RedRollerskate 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because she's actually on the Oldest people list. We can revisit when/if she drops off.  ColourBurst 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If being the 7th oldest person in the world (a claim which I see no verification or sources for, by the way) is her claim to fame, then she has no claim to fame. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records, and even Guinness doesn't list people who come in seventh place. wikipediatrix 23:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment.  Some subjects lend themselves to list-making.  For example, longest river, highest mountain, tallest tree. I'll bet no one would delete an article on seventh-tallest skyscraper!  Others, such as largest bagel ever made, are not really that important.  Also, you're wrong, as Guinness lists Edna in the 2007 edition (they did a 'top 15 oldest living people' chart).→ R Young  {yak ł talk } 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Sun-Times article cited in the article says that she is the 9th. Uncle G 11:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was written in April; it is now October. Two people have died since then.→ R Young {yak ł talk } 09:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The link didn't work when I tried it last night; it's working now. Okay, so now the question is, why is coming in 9th at anything good enough reason to give someone an article? wikipediatrix 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pathetic that, while real facts like these get attacked, fiction such as 'Sunnydale, CA' (or even a local high school) get played up. There are thousands of high schools, yet you are attacking the 'oldest person in Indiana' and 'seventh-oldest in the world.' Speaking of the 100-year test: try again. This woman is 113 years old. Was she remembered in a 113 years? The answer is yes. Do you realize how long ago '1893' was? Why don't you take a look at the '1893' link and do some reading. Ever heard of Frederick Jackson Turner?→ R Young {yak ł talk } 09:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:NOT a mirror of the Guinness book, and WP:NOT a collection of trivia. Once she dies, will "she was once the seventh-oldest known living person" enough to get past the WP:BIO guidelines?  Heck no.  Other than one soft-news newspaper article, what evidence is there to show she's notable while alive?  Will she be remembered, or will people care who was seventh-oldest at one time, in a hundred years?  The "hundred year test" isn't a core policy but it's a useful guideline.  Barno 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a solid reference that she's the oldest woman in Indiana.  That counts as notable. --NovaSTL 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A verified 113-year-old is far more rare than an actor or rock musician, or even a ML baseball player.  The oldest verified person in the UK is a mere 111 right now.  Edna exceeds anyone in Western Europe. She is in the 2007 Guinness Book.→ <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; color:#ff0000;">R <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Young  {<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yak <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;">ł <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">talk } 09:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. As per RYoung. Extremely sexy 10:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let's not forget that Edna is also a moving target; her world ranking could further improve the longer she lives. But, I find it repulsive and anti-American when people continue attacking USA supercentenarian articles (i.e. Florence Homan of Ohio was the prior battle) when those for the Brits involve people years younger (i.e. mere 110 and 111-year-olds, such as Florence Reeves).  Currently the USA has the world's largest supercentenarian population (and overall, is to reach 300 million next week).  With more than five times the population of the UK, expecting number equivalency is simply anti-U.S. bias.→ <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; color:#ff0000;">R <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Young  {<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yak <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;">ł <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">talk } 02:18, 15 October 2006 (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.