Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Watkins


 * 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, default to keep. Wizardman 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Watkins

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sub-stub article on a very old person, more of a factoid than a stub. A PROD was quite reasonably contested in the hope of more sources, but I can find no refs to her in reliable sources on the first three pages of a goog;e search, and a Google News search draws a complete blank. So the only refs to her are in lists, which are too trivial to satisfy WP:BIO. She is already listed in Oldest people, so unless substantive refs are found in reliable sources, I suggest deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. She was the oldest person in the world at one point, and that in itself should be enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, I must comment that - to say this in a way that doesn't personally attack anyone because I don't want to get involved in personal disputes on Wikipedia - it's interesting that you're nominating supercentenarian articles for deletion given User:Bart Versieck nominated an Irish politician stub for deletion and tagged articles about Irish politicians as unreferenced when they had a few references. You clearly have an interest in the field of Irish politicians, and Bart Versieck and the banned Ryoung122 clearly have an interest in supercentenarians.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But a quick read of WP:BIO indicates that all top-level politicians are notable, not to mention that evidence was provided of a laundry list of articles that Robert Young created and suggested everyone go out and delete (or similar). Cheers, CP 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * HisSpaceResearch also neglects to mention that Young's target list was circulated after I had begun tagging unreferenced or non-notable articles on very old people, of which there are a depressingly large number, many of them based on original research. Why am I scrutinising these categories? Because some quick checks revealed a very high proportion of NN articles. Now, would you like to explain why you think an article should be kept despite not meeting the basic test of substantial coverage in reliable sources? What do you think is the point of a standalone article which amounts to only two lines of text, half of which is not referenced to reliable sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is WP:WAX (part of WP:ATA which is an essay and not a guideline, so I'm free to ignore it) but Marie-Rose Mueller survived an AfD and she, not even being the oldest person in one U.S. state let alone world's oldest person, should be a lot less notable than someone who was once the world's oldest person.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, but Mueller had sources to back her up, Watkins does it. It's not about what "rank" makes you notable, it's about having sources available to satisfy the referencing and sourcing requirements. Cheers, CP 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Google searches are not a test of notability, especially for someone who died before the Internet was created.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Oh and Canadian Paul, the fact that Mueller died in 2007 made sources available online - if she'd died in 1987 and had lived the same life there would be no article on her here for sure.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Which is exactly their point. They want notability on the Internet. Not sure about off-line sources. Neal (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
 * So although there is no evidence that any coverage exists or could be found, this is a keep in the hope that something will be found and that it will be substantial, and that it will extend beyond mentions in local newspapers? That's an awful lot of ifs. Rather than keeping a permastub in the vague Micawber-ish hope that something may turn up, why not just agree that the article can be created if and when suitable reliable sources are found to allow something to be said beyond "born X, died Y"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because biographical factoids are good enough to not have me vote delete in my opinion. Neal (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Factoids belong in lists, not in standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently we find it is in both. What a reverse compromise. Neal (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. As per users "HisSpaceResearch", "Colonel Warden" and "NealIRC". Extremely sexy (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2007 (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.