Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsa Moberg


 * 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. Valid concerns were voiced by both sides regarding notability, 1E, etc., but no decision was agreed upon. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Elsa Moberg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

See below. JJB 18:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Prodded by David in DC thoroughly as follows: ''No sources. Unencyclopedic. Relied exclusively on two putative "references" that were not obviously about Elsa Moberg and that are raw data maintained by gerontology researchers and longevity hobbyists. Neither is a reliable source. What's left is a name, birthday, a guesstimate for date of death and unsourced statements about where the subject lived. I deleted unnecessary, and unencyclopedic info, and focus on, another "record-holder". The focus in many longevity bios, on "record-holding" by nationality, occupation, blood type or what-have-you is unencyclopedic. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN needs pruning.'' After DiDC removed GRG and OHB as less-than-reliable sources, OlYeller declined prod, finding two sources. Both sources are local, 10 sentences or less, and about other subjects than Moberg (Zachrison and Småland), with one sentence to Moberg each. Neither mentions the earlier birthdate. Per WikiProject guidance at WP:WOP (which has been unchanged consensus for a month now), extant sourcing fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:RS. Finally, redundancy with WP's 2001 list, its Swedish list, and its Zachrison article is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. JJB 18:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Voting for your own nomination is inappropriate; it gives your voice two votes instead of one. But then we never expect you to follow the rules, do we? Ryoung 122 17:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't know that. Could you cite a policy or guideline to that effect? I speak here of your first assertion. Your second is incivil and best ignored.David in DC (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's necessarily against policy, but I can see Ryoung's point. It does look like a !vote in addition to the nom. More commonly, the rationale is included in the nom. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. On further reading, JJB has the standard list of false accusations, and is self-contradictory: "no sources" and then mentions two references. JJB uses weasel words like "unencyclopedic" and false characterizations such as "raw data". This is NOT raw data, this is processed and vetted data. A guesstimate for date of death? Please. That information can easily be found.

If this material is not enough for an article at the moment, it can be merged to a list and expanded later, as there is a sufficient reason to keep it. Oh, and DavidinDC removed sources first? Sources that are reliable? Talk about a hatchet job. Ryoung 122 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hatchet job? WP:NPA. For a less, um, nefarious explanation, please see my comments near the bottom of the page, in response to Heymid.David in DC (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. She is notable for being the oldest resident in her country for a period of time. There are references, categories, and some biographical information about her. All that the article needs is some extension and some care. Give it time. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick, the guidance, linked above, at the project at which you are a member, states, "But longevity itself, without more, is subject to Wikipedia policy guidance on one-event biographies." Your argument for inherent notability is contradictory to both your project and WP policy and purposes; and you have had opportunity to disagree while this guidance was being written, and you did not. The "please wait" argument has already been used at very many AFDs listed at WT:WOP and has generally failed. AFD gives you a week to find significant, independent, notable, multiple, verifiable, reliable sourcing, which your silence basically admits has not been found yet. JJB 22:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. JJB is citing her own policy insertions, typical COI Wiki-lawyering. Also, "silence is consent" is a lie, especially when others are not notified of the change. Ryoung 122 18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll AGF about the gender confusion in your use of pronouns. As to not being notified, I made the most recent edits a month ago. If you're a member of the project, surely you have the project's page on your watchlist. If not, it's really not cricket to complain about a lack of notice. David in DC (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The gender confusion is probably a symptom of the same issue evidenced by the inability to recognize italics as indicating a quotation, because "he" (meaning Ryoung122) also referred to my quotation of your (meaning David in DC's) words (meaning "no sources", "unencyclopedic", and "raw data") as being my own words, dramatically demonstrating the dullness of "his" determination. Ryoung122 also deleted from WP:WOP the month-stable consensus guidance that I quoted above, and I restored it after explaining the consensus rationale (and "his" reliance on falsehoods, as in fact you rather than I wrote that sentence). I also changed ONEEVENT to WP:BLP1E. JJB 14:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, for the reasons I stated in my PROD and per JJB's additional information and argument.David in DC (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I share the concerns about the WP:WALLEDGARDEN of longevity articles, but each article should be assessed on its own merits. In this case the coverage available is insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and in any case WP:ONEEVENT applies. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep Merge - Two points. One being that she was notable, in my opinion, for a period of time and notability is not temporary meaning that the fact that she doesn't hold the title anymore shouldn't be an issue.  If people have an issue with it, I would say that points more to the fact that "oldest person from a country" probably shouldn't imply notability.  My second point is that, as I mentioned on the talk page, there are definitely more references available.  I'm not of the belief that a "local source" is somehow incapable of being reliable or usable as a reference so I would say that all six sources found here in a very brief search, imply notability.  That they're not in the article now just means that the article needs work and not that the article should be deleted.  If I were to change my vote, it would most likely be due to WP:ONEEVENT but I'm not convinced that it applies to the length of a person's life.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; those points don't go directly to the conclusions at the longevity WikiProject, quoted above. "Oldest person from a country", alone, does not imply notability; agreement has been that, when it's notability alone with age over 110, BIO1E applies and the person may be mentioned in lists instead (line-item notability). Some parties disagree repeatedly in AFD but have never commented on the project guidance in place, which is not constructive (an ArbCom is open). All editors so far have indicated that "inherent notability" is a deciding factor in their vote, and the project has decided against inherent notability in bare cases like this. I had seen the six sources and on the prior brief review they all looked similar to the two of them that are already in the article (and I may confirm this later). Note that local does not mean unreliable but does mean less independent and less certain to have been established as reliable by RSN; one-sentence mentions are plainly not significant; and article-level notability is not established even if six articles all mention the one event (record-breaking age). JJB 18:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After your comments and the comments of others, I'm changing my opinion. I think a Merge is in order (not the change above).  I think this information is better suited for a list of the longest living Swedish people (if an article exists) or List of Swedish supercentenarians.  If people who fall on this list have other notable information, an article can be created. As for the discussion going on regarding oldest-people type articles at WP:N, I hope it is concluded soon so that it can be applied to AFDs so that discussions like this don't need to happen as often or are easily concluded. Until then, I'm not sure that it's anyone who participates in such AfD's responsibility to be involved with that case.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - Nothing at all notable about this individual. No accomplishments, nothing at all that meets WP:BIO simply a lady who lived to a fair age and passed away, which when it comes down to it, is not encyclopedic content by any measure. -  Gallo glass  07:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps an article along the lines of Timeline of three tallest structures in the world, then the names of the people and their age could be listed, but each old person would not have an article of his or her own. Maybe it would violate WP:NOR though. Dr bab (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You have correctly and independently hit upon the compromise that was reached in 2007; see list of Swedish supercentenarians. What was not solved at that time is that, due to issues currently being heard at ArbCom, redundancy to such articles abounds, and articles like the Swedish list have zero reliable sources. I have no problem merging Moberg's sources to that article, as has been done previously; and may I count your comment as a merge !vote? JJB 18:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If such an article already exists, then yes, I would vote for a mergeDr bab (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The 2007 compromise included mini-bios, not just list format. It's not too much to have a paragraph or three lines on someone who was once Sweden's oldest person ever. Ryoung 122 17:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: She is clearly notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to which policy or guideline do you think she is notable? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Theres a difference between a record being surpassed than someone popping up and showing that said person never had the record to begin with. Longevitydude (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Records, surpassed or otherwise, are irrelevant: the article does not meet WP:GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a typical WP:VAGUEWAVE vote. Could you explain why the article fails WP:NOTABILITY? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the above comments, particularly those of Galloglass, are substituting personal opinion for Wikipedia policy. Notability is not established or disestablished simply because one believes that extreme age is not notable. Aside from being Sweden's oldest person for more than a year (so much for the "one event" excuse), her story was well-covered in journalistic sources. Ryoung 122 17:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Ideally this could be merged to List of Swedish supercentenarians. As the former recordholder, her case is significant as a milestone of longevity extention.
 * Robert, where are those journalistic sources? All we have so far is two brief mentions in short articles.
 * The fact that she was Sweden's oldest person for a year can be recorded in a list; it does not require a standalone article.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This page was at first a redirect. At the time it was converted to a standalone article, she was the oldest Swede to have ever lived. An article should not be deleted just because the subject no longer has that honour. Finally, I can't think of anything that suggests Wikipedia doesn't benefit with this article. Why are there seemingly so high notability requirements for supercentenarians? If we should delete this one, I think we should also delete a bunch of other BLPs about supercentenarians. Also, as a side note, it's hard to get an article deleted through PROD if it has existed for five years. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, we should delete all these articles that fail the notability policy, this one included. -  Gallo glass  20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Honour, like being a "record-holder", is not what this is all about. Notability and coverage in reliable sources are the guidestars here. The article failed miserably on these counts when I put up the PROD notice. Being wrong for a long time isn't really a badge of honor . The PROD notice led to some plausible approximation of reliable sources being inserted in place of the earlier citations to raw data tables that were clearly out-of-bounds. But those articles still don't establish notability, in this editor's view.
 * "If we should delete this one, I think we should also delete a bunch of other BLPs about supercentenarians." I agree. And not just BLP's, but plenty of BDP's, as well. And myriads of ill-sourced charts, tables, and cross-referenced lists filtered by occupation, country, continent, and who-knows what-else. (Blood type? Where the subject stands/stood on the great "Tastes Great/Less Filling" divide?) But in the meantime WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to keep one article, just because another similar bad article or articles exist. David in DC (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. David: Please STOP with the misuse of terms such as "raw data" to refer to the GRG. It is NOT raw data. It is PROCESSED data. Just ask all those not on the lists. Your continued misuse of the term to disparage the GRG is typical of the misbehavior that editors like you continue to get away with. The GRG is cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Guinness World Records, and in the academic literature. Your refusal to become educated on this subject, at the same time you insist on editing it, is problematic and detrimental to Wikipedia. Ryoung 122 17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our contrasting views about the data tables hosted at www.grg.org have been aired sufficiently for this AfD. Let's stop refuting each other here. Anyone interested can read the continuing conversation here. David in DC (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. She was the oldest living person in Sweden at one time. She was a person of notability and she was documented. Encyclopaedias contain information about the highest mountains and the longest rivers, therefore, contrary to what David in DC states, the world's oldest people, be it regional, national or worldwide, are by definition encyclopaedic. Cam46136 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Record-holders can be, and are, included in lists, so this deletion discussion is not about removing the information that she was once the oldest living person. However, wikipedia's notability guidelines apply, and the issue here is whether Moberg meets WP:GNG. None of those claiming "keep" have offered any evidence that she does. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer: The notes above do not do justice to the commitment to COI and SPA editing held by at least four editors above, as documented at WT:WOP, which should be closely consulted. For instance, Cam46136 has made only 18 edits to WP, all 18 of them to AFDs about supercentenarians. I hope it will not be necessary to connect the dots on this one. JJB 14:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG. Much of the referenced material is in Sweedish sources rather than English sources. Moberg's longevity brought reliable source coverage to detail her life, well beyond the one event of becoming the oldest person in Sweden. None of those claiming "delete" have offered any evidence that the topic does not meet WP:GNG. Deletion evaluates topics and the omission of the Sweedish sources material from the article does not justify deleting the topic. The edits to the article since the nomination have addressed the concerns of the nomination. Since reliable source coverage of Elsa Moberg goes beyond the context of the single event of Moberg becoming the oldest person in Sweden, the article should be kept. Concerning the nomination, the multiple !votes by the nominator is inappropriate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good-faith attempt to resolve the nom concerns, to which I will indicate where the concerns remain unaddressed and new concerns arise. You added a paragraph sourced to four unlinked articles, and three external links (two appear to be paylinks, and one is an 11-sentence article on Zachrison that beats the others in nonnotability by giving only half a sentence to Moberg). (1) 3 (or even 5) local-only mentions, totaling 2.5 sentences, are neither significant (let alone multiply significant), nor independent, nor necessarily reliable, nor verifiable in the pay cases, nor necessarily notable; this is my basis for saying GNG is not met. (2) The conflict over deathdate, which seems to arise within GRG, is evidence that the date is not even sufficiently notable to have been reported consistently. (3) As David stated, focus on record-holding by nationality, without other notability factors, is unencyclopedic: specifically, the existence of the article is undue weight (overemphasis on record-breaking), not rectified by sourcing that lacks true content. (4) All but one person commenting at the WikiProject agree that cases like this satisfy BIO1E (or WP:BLP1E) and are appropriate for merging or deletion, not retention. (5) But there must also be something to merge, and your statement that reliable sources detail her life beyond BIO1E is not consonant with your edit, in that trivial mention of siblings and marriage is not life details "well beyond the one event" (going "beyond the context" means being notable or newsworthy for other reasons than the record-breaking event, such as a supercentenarian using her fame to record a rap CD). (6) Your statement that much material is in "Sweedish" sources is not consonant with your citing unlinked non-Swedish sources, and your linking nonmaterial Swedish sources externally without citation. (7) You act as if nonnotability under GNG has the burden of proof (asking us to prove a negative), when in fact notability has the burden of proof, which I don't think you have met. (8) Your argument that omission of "Sweedish" sources does not justify deletion is not valid, because deletion is justified on other policy arguments, and because the sources omitted were already accounted for in those arguments. (9) You rely unduly on Ryoung122's statement that (a) I voted multiple times and (b) my two-paragraph nomination is inappropriate, when in fact no conscientious human or computer would mistake my nom for double-voting, no policy forbids two-paragraph noms, and AFD templates in fact make a two-paragraph presentation more presentable (and thus preferred by many editors) in long-nom heavy-markup cases. (And undue reliance upon Ryoung122 is currently subject to ArbCom review in the "Longevity" case.) (10) If you have access to the paywalled articles or the unlinked articles, you should copy relevant fair-use portions of them to satisfy WP:V, which is unmet by any of your added material (nothing you added can be verified as coming from the sources named).
 * In sum, IMHO to retain this article rather than delete or merge, I would (as I stated at WT:WOP) look for (1) a verifiable plurality of significant coverages in unquestionable independent (preferably nonlocal) sources, (2) a resolution of the issue that the debated deathdate suggests nonnotability, (3) notability beyond the context of the one event (record-breaking), (4) support by other non-COI editors active at WP:WOP, (5)-(9) harmony between your statements and the extant facts and policies, and (10) satisfaction of WP:V. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 16:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * its my birthday and nick ornstein's birthday so please keep it as a present to us for our contributions. Longevitydude (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2011 (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.