Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tillman


 * 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 keep. A long and drawn out debate... I'm aware there's probably been at least a little canvassing here, but it looks to me that consensus has been drifting towards keeping this article. I would suggest creating some kind of guideline for articles such as these in light of recent AFD nominations of similar articles to this one. — foxj 01:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Emma Tillman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography for an individual who was the oldest living person in the world for five days. As discussed at Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier amongst other pages, being the oldest person alone is not sufficient for notability (Tessier was the oldest living person, oldest living woman, obviously, oldest Frenchwoman ever, and oldest nun and that wasn't sufficient). I note that all the coverage here qualifies as WP:ROUTINE obituary-like coverage that would be expected and nothing lasting. Finally, I think WP:NOPAGE applies and this would at best be a redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is NOT a valid argument. Furthermore, Augustine Tessier was not thought to be the world's oldest person when she was alive, because Shigechiyo Izumi was thought to be the W.O.P. She is only recognised retrospectively because Izumi's claim has since been found to be fraudulent. So, it's not a fair comparison. Your reasoning doesn't make sense: Tessier is not notable because of a lack of sources, but when faced with someone who is covered by sources, they're not notable because another W.O.P wasn't notable. Sorry, but if you want to determine whether someone meets WP:GNG by looking at the sources, then this person does. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But see Other_stuff_exists: I am pointing out prior cases. Tillman is basically the same as Tessier then, she wasn't known as the world's oldest person at the time of her death either. Same as Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, yes she was. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, Tillman was known or she wasn't known? Either way, we look at the sources that exist, not speculate on whether sources could or even should exist based on our beliefs about whether they were relatively known or not. In both cases, they aren't notable because the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect per nom. Longevity alone is not notable. A list exists to accommodate information about this person and is more appropriate than a stand-alone page. Nothing in the "sources" or text suggests any encyclopedic reason for inclusion and the absence of multiple, independent reliable sources other than routine coverage in obits suggests policy-based reason for deletion. David in DC (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Longevity alone is not notable" --> According to what consensus? You keep saying this but outside sources disagree, otherwise the world's oldest people would not be frequently reported on in the news. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I use the word "notable" as it is defined on Wikipedia, WP:N. This is not governed by consensus. It's definitional. Please read the policy.  It's not about the every-day usage of the word. Reasonable people can differ about whether this person is notable in the every-day usage. But as to Wikipedia rules, it's not even a close call. The references on the page are five obituaries for the subject and one for her predecessor "title-holder" in the mythical contest for longevity. Of the five, two are by the same author.  One is longer, for the New York Times, and one is shorter, for the International Herald-Tribune, which, at the time, was half-owned by the Times.  These two are hardly independent of one another. Of the three remaining obits, one is an AP wire service story.  The other two, from the BBC and the LA Times, cover basically the same facts.  There simply is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And that's what "notable" means here. David in DC (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the consensus with Tessier, Okubo, Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination) and other discussions. As I asked at Articles for deletion/Antonio Todde, can you point to an example of a consensus that longevity alone is notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about the consensus with Misao Okawa, Jeralean Talley, Gertrude Weaver, Sakari Momoi, and Ethel Lang, where the consensus in each case was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping those articles? Only you and David in DC voted to delete. Quite frankly, that says more about your misinterpretation of WP:GNG than it does about the notability of the world's oldest people. Bob Taggart was only the oldest man in Scotland when he died, so that's not a fair comparison. Augustine Tessier (which you have frequently cited elsewhere) was also not a fair comparison because she was not known to be the world's oldest person when she was alive. Even the decision to delete Antonio Todde was contentious in my view (the closing admin admitted the article could be restablished if more sourcing is found). What is pretty evident is this: in general, longevity = coverage in reliable sources. Longevity does equate to notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review and retract, as to my !votes. In four of the five cases you cite, I did not participate, let alone !vote to delete. David in DC (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was talking about them collectively, not meaning that you voted to delete in all of them. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's agreed that coverage in reliable sources = notability. Longevity is not the relevant criteria. Some of the oldest in the world have survived, some has not; some of the world's oldest in a country have survived, some have not. I think we can all agree on that at least. It's no different than some of the tallest people on earth have articles but not most of them I imagine. The end result will probably be a result of systemic bias where the most recent people who died in English-speaking countries with obviously internet-available sources will be kept while older and more obscure individuals won't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In this context I think it's best to avoid use of the word survived without further qualification i.e. perhaps you should say survived AfD. I think you can see why... EEng (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So why not develop General Notability Guidelines for "people noted for longevity alone"? We have GNGs for sports figures, politicians, and even TV characters. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to develop one then. My view is longevity is not sufficient for an individual article on the person. It is sufficient for the concept or idea of the longest living person as reliable sources indicate but not for the individual articles. I don't see the point in developing something that basically says "any claims that they are notable should be ignored and we should rely back on the WP:GNG standards". The point of those is to clarify a fine-line where the GNG already is going to be settled and we don't have that here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article passes notability standards. Emma Tillman is clearly famous than Augustine Tessier who died more than 30 years ago. also, personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is not good reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm sorry but how is she more famous than Tessier? Is it just because she died more recently and we have some more sources now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Likely notable but WP:NOPAGE. "Tillman ran her own baking and catering service whose regular customers included Dr. Thomas Hepburn, a noted Hartford Hospital urologist and father to actress Katharine Hepburn"—‌worthless padding. EEng (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * keep. Was the oldest person in the world for FIVE DAYS. Not minutes, not hours but DAYS. Clearly very notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.106 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)  — 166.171.122.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group.  Montanabw (talk)  04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What's a "tentative keep"? "Pending review by GRG"? No. GRG is not the default source for notability on Wikipedia. Notability is defined here as having significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, independent of one another and of the subject. GRG governs what goes on the multiplicity of GRG tables, not what is included here. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding among some !voters about the meaning of "Notability" as it is defined on Wikipedia. We're not talking about notability in the dictionary sense of the word. As to that reasonable people can differ. But here we're talking about a pillar of our project, well-defined for our common purpose, and routinely ignored, brushed aside or misapprehended by members of the WOP Wikiproject and others advocating for the notability of various people who've won a mythical contest. Longevity is a topic for serious encyclopedic coverage. The various record-breakers and title-holders are not, unless they meet our general notability guidelines.  Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service the GRG. David in DC (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've stricken the portion of my comment that reflects my inability to read capital letters. I apologize to Montanabw for misconstruing their comments and thank Ollie231213 for setting me straight. D'oh! David in DC (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I keep emphasizing, there's still WP:NOPAGE to consider—‌even if notability is there, subjects about whom there's so little to say may be best treated in the context of a larger article or list. EEng (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some already are (such as List of supercentenarians from the United States but for those who have been covered more widely in the media, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have a standalone article. These are not characters from a TV show, they are all individuals who are covered individually. Just because they are notable for the same reasons doesn't mean they can't have their own articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't have their own article because a standalone article isn't the best way to present the tiny amount there is to say about them. As NOPAGE says:
 * When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
 * EEng (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @David in DC: The user Montanabw said "GNG", not "GRG". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which makes Montanabw's comments even less sensible. What does "pending review of GNG" even mean? EEng (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Mrs. Tillman received media coverage from at least the age of 110 up to her death at age 114+, thus spanning more than four years, in a variety of sources (nwespapers, video reports, and internet articles, among others); earlier in this thread, David in DC identified/defined Notability as "having significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, independent of one another and of the subject". In my mind, Mrs. Tillman's media coverage is a perfect example of that definition, and as a result she would qualify for WP:GNG.Fiskje88 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you point to the coverage from her age 110? It would be coverage from 2003 or so. All the articles cited here are from 2007 when she died at 114 or later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From November 2003: http://www.journalinquirer.com/archives/at-she-s-living-history/article_b764938f-8a92-5e75-9269-a1689abbbc07.html

"At 110, she's living history EAST HARTFORD — The year was 1893. Grover Cleveland was completing the first year of his second term as president of the United States, Jim Crow laws and frequent lynchings oppressed Southern blacks, and a devastating depression gripped the economy. Posted: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:00 am By Joe Ax | 0 comments It was into such a world that Emma Faust Tillman was born to a pair of North Carolina sharecroppers and former slaves. On Thursday, Tillman celebrated her 110th birthday with dozens of friends, relatives, and well-wishers at the Riverside Rehabilitation and Health Center, where she has lived for several months. "All these people here are my friends, both black and white," she said, smiling faintly. It is difficult to fathom just how long 110 years is. Consider, for example, that John F. Kennedy was assassinated on Tillman's 70th birthday on Nov. 22, 1963. Tillman received a proclamation from Gov. John G. Rowland on Wednesday announcing that Saturday — her actual birthday — shall be known as Emma Tillman Day. On Thursday, Mayor Timothy D. Larson stopped by with one of his own, honoring the super-centenarian. Town Councilman Donald H. Pitkin, who is a mere 82, brought Tillman 110 roses. "I've never seen that many roses together at one time," she said. People are constantly asking for her secret, but she claims she has no idea. She is not the only member of her family to reach the century mark — her brother, Eugene, lived to be 108, and two of her sisters also reached 100. She still has one sister in New Jersey who is rapidly approaching 100. Tillman is one of the oldest people in the world. According to London-based Guinness World Records, the oldest person is Charlotte Benkner of North Lima, Ohio, who turned 114 Nov. 16. When Tillman and her siblings were young, their father, Alphonso, asked them to promise never to drink or smoke. They agreed, and Tillman has kept her promise to this day. "Is that water?" she asked suspiciously as a family member drank a clear liquid. When another handed her ginger ale for a toast in her honor, she eyed it carefully before trying a sip. According to a short family history by historian Kathleen L. Housley, the surname "Faust" was actually the name of the plantation owner who owned her parents, and the Fausts adopted it as their own following the Civil War, as was commonly done. When Tillman was 7, her family decided to escape the South and make its way north to Glastonbury. Though she attended school, she was the only black girl at Glastonbury High School, and when she entered the work force, she used her talents in the kitchen to become first a cook and then later a caterer, sometimes serving meals for state dignitaries, said her daughter, Marjorie, who is herself in her 70s. One of her earliest jobs was as the cook for the Hepburn family, where she got to know Katharine Hepburn as a young girl, even accompanying the family to a summer home. She also once baked a cake for Jackie Robinson, who was visiting her church, Marjorie Tillman said. "He said he hadn't had cake like that since his mother made them when he was a child," she said. Robinson was so impressed that he offered Emma Tillman tickets to some Brooklyn Dodgers games, which she happily accepted. Asked whether she ever expected to reach 110, she smiled. "I ain't going nowhere," she said.

November 2004.

http://broadcast.organicframework.com/p/In-The-News-Turn-To-10- 111YearOld-Celebrates-Birthday___188,18591.html

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041119/NEWS01/411190313/1002

Timeless wonder

By DAVID PENCEK Norwich Bulletin - ---

Photos by John Shishmanian/Norwich Bulletin

Emma Tillman of Hartford, left, celebrates her 111th birthday with her daughter, Marjorie Tillman, 78, of Hartford, center, at Foxwoods Resort Casino. The casino gave her a cake and Toni Parker-Johnson, director of Public Relations, slipped her a $100 bill. -- --

MASHANTUCKET-- Emma Tillman hadn't experienced a birthday party like this since, well since she celebrated her 110th birthday.

Since Tillman turned 100 nearly 11 years ago, Foxwoods Resort Casino has thrown one of its most loyal patrons a party. On the cusp of turning 111, Tillman and a busload of friends and family traveled from Hartford Thursday and made what has become their annual visit to Foxwoods.

The casino had a cake for Tillman, whose birthday is Monday, and presented her with gifts. She then went to play the slots and spent the afternoon at the casino.

"I just like being here," the soft-spoken Tillman said as she sat in her wheel chair. "I'm glad to be here."

Tillman began visiting Foxwoods when it was just high-stakes bingo. She made the trip once a month and continued coming when Foxwoods turned into a casino. She only visits once a year now -- to celebrate her birthday.

Anyone who has lived as long as Tillman obviously has many experiences and stories to tell, but how many other's experiences include making breakfast for a president of the United States or meeting a young woman who would become one of the country's great actresses.

As a caterer, Tillman cooked breakfast for President Franklin Roosevelt when he visited Hartford. She also worked for the Hepburn family and met Katharine Hepburn when she was just 19.

"I used to go to the beach and be there with her," Tillman said of Hepburn.

Tillman lives in a retirement community in Hartford. She was born in North Carolina, but her family moved to Glastonbury when she was 7. She had two daughters, one passed away while her other daughter Marjorie was present at Thursday's celebration.

"She likes it laid back," Marjorie said. "She continues to listen to music and she loves reading books. Friends visit her and she plays cards."

According to Marjorie, her mother has seven grandchildren, 36 great- grandchildren, 15 great-great-grandchildren and five great-great- great-grandchildren.

Tillman gave some simple advice to those who want to know what it's like to live for more than a century.

"Try to get there," she said. "Try to make it."

http://www.ctnow.com/features/lifestyle/hc-java1120.artnov20,0,5842167.column

Emma Hits 111, And Hits The Slots November 20, 2004

Emma Tillman didn't have much luck at the slots Thursday at Foxwoods Resort Casino, even though she went machine-hopping.

But at 111, you'd still have to call her Lady Luck.

Tillman's birthday is Monday, but Hartford's elder stateswoman couldn't wait to indulge in one of her favorite pastimes, and she made the trek by bus Thursday morning with friends and family from the North Hartford Senior Center.

"It was unbelievable." said John Singletary, a family friend from West Hartford. "She was there from 11 to 5:30."

The casino provided her with a birthday cake, which she enjoyed, but, Singletary said, "She was anxious to get to the machines."

Tillman usually comes home a little ahead, but this time, like other people, she left some with the casino.

Well, there's always next year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6530407/

Finally, a happy birthday to Emma Tillman from North Carolina. Emma turned 111 years old yesterday and celebrated in fine style at the Foxwood Indian Casino in Connecticut. The lady likes the slots. Tillman is one of 23 children in her family, seven of whom lived to be over 100. She credits her longevity to a life free of smoking, drinking, and except for the compulsive gambling part, otherwise clean living.

The casino threw the party for Emma. No word if they threw in a roll of quarters. We sure hope so.

November 2005.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15621809&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

Top Stories

Emma Faust Tillman celebrates 112th birthday

By Christine Stuart, Journal Inquirer November 22, 2005

Email to a friend Voice your opinion

Nelson Burton shares a smile Monday with his aunt, Emma Faust Tillman, during a party for Tillman's 112th birthday — or perhaps it's her 113th — held at Riverside Health Care in East Hartford. (Jim Michaud / Journal Inquirer)

EAST HARTFORD -- While Emma Faust Tillman celebrated her 112th birthday Monday, some relatives wondered if she shouldn't be celebrating her 113th.

But Tillman disputes their claims that she's a year older than she knows she is. The daughter of North Carolina sharecroppers and former slaves, Tillman rejects evidence that says she was born Nov. 22, 1892, instead of 1893.

Her daughter Marge Tillman said her mother always tells her "that's not right."

Lori Stewart, Tillman's great-great-niece, said she recently met with an uncle who obtained copies of U.S. census data from her birthplace, Greensboro, N.C. She said the census conducted June 15, 1900, lists Tillman as a 7-year old child born in 1892.

The new evidence makes her one of the oldest women in the world, behind Elizabeth Bolden of Memphis, Tenn., who currently holds the Guinness World Records distinction as the world's oldest woman. Bolden is 115.

Advertisement

One of 23 siblings, several of Tillman's brothers and sisters also lived long lives. Her brother Eugene lived to be 108, and two of her sisters also reached 100.

"I have nothing to say after 112 years," she said. But she added that if she's here next year she expects another bouquet of roses from Republican Councilman Donald Pitkin.

Pitkin said he had gotten to know Tillman during the time he spent at the facility where she resides. Two years ago he gave her a bouquet of 110 red roses and Monday he presented her with a bouquet of yellow, purple, red, and pink roses.

Mayor and state Rep. Melody A. Currey warned Tillman that Pitkin, 84, was single. "He's single so watch out," Currey said.

The staff at Riverside Rehabilitation and Health Center where Tillman resides said it is their honor to take care of Tillman. "I'll be here as long as they keep me," Tillman said.

"I'm going to live to be 120," she bragged.

Former Bloomfield mayor and state treasurer Joseph Suggs, a distant relative, said Tillman is the matriarch of the entire family. He thanked her for all she had done for the family.

Her daughter Marge said, "God has given me a great gift." She said she can only hope her memory is as remarkable as her mother's.

When Tillman was 7, her family decided to escape the South and make its way north to Glastonbury. She was the only black girl at Glastonbury High School and when she entered the workforce she became a cook and caterer, serving meals to state dignitaries.

One of her earliest jobs was as a cook for the Hepburn family, where she got to know Katherine Hepburn as a young girl.

Tillman also was one of the first women to vote in 1920. Family members said she has voted in every election since.

October 2006:

http://www.salvationarmy-usaeast.org/SApublish/priority/pr_article.cfm?article_id=204

Email this article to a Friend Who's News

She's in Guinness! by Linda D. Johnson

Salvation Army Major John Stewart greets his great-great-aunt, Emma Tillman, the fourth-oldest woman in the world.John F. Kennedy died on Emma Tillman's 71st birthday, Nov. 22, 1963. Nov. 22, 2006, just a day before Thanksgiving, is Emma's 114th birthday. In October 2006, the family held a pre-birthday celebration to mark her inclusion in the Guinness Book of World Records 2007, where she is listed as the sixth-oldest person in the world. But since the book was published, two of those "above" her on the list have already died, so she's now the fourth-oldest person.

Emma Faust Tillman was born on Nov. 22, 1893, to sharecroppers on the Faust Plantation in Gibsonville, N.C. Alphonso, Emma's father, was the son of a female slave and the plantation owner, Cane Faust, and, as was common in that day, he took Faust as his last name. Emma's mother, Martha Gibson Faust, of Native American heritage, was also born into slavery.

When the family moved to Glastonbury, Conn., in 1900, Emma was 6 years old. She was one of 23 children, some of whom died at birth or in their early years. But several of Emma's siblings lived past 100, including a sister, Ava, who died at 102 in 1983, and a brother, Eugene, who died at 108 in 1996.

At Glastonbury High, Emma was the only black girl in the school, but she didn't encounter prejudice until she tried to find a job. She had trained to become a bookkeeper, but no one would hire her. So she took work as a housekeeper. Ava did the same; they both earned as little as 50 cents a day.

More than 70 years later, in 1980, John B. Stewart, Ava's grandson and Emma's grandnephew, earned the distinction of becoming the first African-American to serve as fire chief in Hartford, Conn.

Stewart says that Emma, as the oldest person in the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in the city, is known not just as the "mother" of the church but also as the mother of the AME Conference. She has belonged to the Hartford church for 80 years.

"She always loved the Lord and prayed me through my bad times," says Stewart's son, John L. Stewart III. When the younger Stewart found the Lord for himself and eventually answered the call to become a pastor/officer in The Salvation Army, Emma was thrilled.

"If I come and visit her, and I'm not in my Salvation Army uniform, she wants me to go put it on," says Major Stewart, Emma's great- grandnephew. The elder Stewart serves on the advisory board for a Salvation Army church in Hartford's North End.

Says Barbara Harris, a great-niece, Emma is known for "loving God and the people." Asked if she would want to live as long as Emma, Harris says, "Only if I could be in good shape and have the same kind of mind [as Emma]."

The day of the Guinness celebration, family members gathered at the Riverside Rehabilitation and Health Center in East Hartford, Conn., where Emma took up residence just a few years ago. Finally, a nurse wheeled Emma, dressed in a white lace blouse and black silk skirt, into the room. Gradually, as family members took turns paying respects to their matriarch, Emma drew close to a large sheet cake proclaiming her status in Guinness.

Daisy Asquith, interviewing Emma for a London Channel 4 TV special on the world's oldest people, bent down close to ask questions into Emma's ear. But Emma had a question of her own.

"Who made the cake?" she wanted to know. In her day, Emma was widely known for her skills as a baker.

She may be hard of hearing, but Emma's mind is still sharp, and she's as healthy as someone her age can be. Scott Emmons of the Riverside Center says, "She's very stable. All she takes is a multivitamin every day."

Emma expects to be around for a while longer. Back in 2005, she told a local paper, "I'm going to live to be 120."

If she does, she will be listed in Guinness again—perhaps this time as the oldest person in the world.

John Stewart, the former fire chief, says that when anyone asks Emma the secret to her longevity, she says, "Ask the Man upstairs!"

14 December 2006:

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-cttillman1214.artdec14,0,2419242.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

Moving Up In The World December 14, 2006 By JIM FARRELL, Courant Staff Writer EAST HARTFORD -- Her eyes were drowsy but she smiled sweetly Wednesday when asked if she were proud to be the third-oldest person in the world.

"Yes," 114-year-old Emma Faust Tillman said in a whisper as she shifted slightly under the colored afghan that covered her slight frame.

With the death Monday of a 116-year-old Tennessee woman, Tillman moved up on a list of validated "supercentarians" maintained by the Gerontology Research Group in Los Angeles and other organizations.

Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico is now the leader at 115 years and 115 days, according to the research group and the Guinness Book of World Records, and Julie Winnefred Bertrand of Canada is second at 115 years and 89 days. Tillman is 114 years and 22 days old.

"It's pretty amazing - she just keeps moving up the line," said Lisa Bouchard, a staff member at the Riverside Health and Rehabilitation Center, where Tillman shares a second-floor room with a woman who is a mere 84.

"She always says, if you do things in life that you enjoy, and you enjoy doing these things, it makes for a wonderful life," said the Rev. Terry L. Jones, Sr., pastor of Metropolitan A.M.E. Zion Church in Hartford.

Tillman, who was born Nov. 22, 1892, has been a member of the church since 1915, said Jones, who said she attended service there as recently as two weeks ago.

Jones said Tillman napped in her wheelchair during portions of the service but perked up visibly when the choir sang anthems she enjoyed.

"She loves music," Jones said. "And she loved cooking and serving people through her church."

Tillman is the great aunt of John B. Stewart, the former Hartford fire chief.

"She is my grandmother's sister," said Stewart, the self-described family historian.

Stewart said Tillman never smoked, never drank, never wore glasses and only reluctantly agreed to wear a hearing aid.

The mother of two, a widow since 1939, Tillman was living by herself in an apartment in Hartford until she was 110, when she moved to Riverside, Stewart said.

Stewart said he is grateful that Tillman's longevity has brought attention to his family's rich history.

As for how long Tillman might live, Stewart said: "You never know. It's in the hands, as she says, of the Lord."

Her legacy could last much longer.

The daughter of former slaves, Tillman is one of 23 children. The family moved from North Carolina to Glastonbury in 1895.

Last week, Tillman's relatives appeared before a committee working to select a name for new 700-student elementary school in Glastonbury. They suggested the Emma Faust Tillman Elementary School - one of several suggestions that are being considered.

Contact Jim Farrell at jfarrell@....

Staff writer Peter Marteka contributed to this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is unconstructive. The AfD template explicitly invites editors to improve the article while an AfD is pending. If an editor thinks this material helps establish notability, editing the article and then putting some links to the edits here is good practice. Posting a wall of text here is pretty much the opposite of the way to handle this. David in DC (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not your question/suggestion; you asked me whether there were any pre-obituary resources, which I subsequently provided. Fiskje88 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "you asked me". I did? I don't usually aim my !vote at a particular editor and I don't see that I did here. And I surely did not ask someone to post a gargantuan violation of the copyright guidelines and applicable copyright law. David in DC (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I now see Ricky asked me that question instead of you; I was wrong. I do see we have different views regarding the sourcing of the articles - everything I've copied and pasted has both its primary source as well as the name of the author referenced. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * keep notable person.--2403:99DD:6FE5:6E00:15E3:DA92:7566:CA90 (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — 2403:99DD:6FE5:6E00:15E3:DA92:7566:CA90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete and redirect for nom and other delete/redirect comments, examples of similar articles not being keep'd show that being "oldest..." does not guarantee an article. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about these?      -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still shows that being "oldest" does not guarantee an article. The arguments that "oldest is sufficient for notability" isn't in line with policy and simply ignores those discussions. You can still argue that this passes GNG but arguing as if all those discussions haven't happened isn't a long-term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep. A GNG is being added at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people to confirm that the oldest person is allowed. Once that's done, the deletions will be over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.78 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * keep The majority of the media remove old articles to create free space for new articles. It is NOT ok to wait years and years until the majority of articles about a notable person (the WOP IS notable!) have disappeared. That is bending Wikipedia rules into your own favour. I see no reason why we should start deleting WOP's who have been covered in the news. Petervermaelen (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Petervermaelen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Userfy If notable, only notable for being very old when dead, which is no notability at all. I'd recommend some editor take this into their userspace until policy changes to provide an exception in these cases. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest copying these types articles to the Gerontology wiki instead as they would be more inclusive (it's the same license I think). What do you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone from that wiki wanted to move this content over there it wouldn't be my concern. I'm seeing a lot of non-policy based arguments here from a bunch of editors that never read WP:BLP1E. It's well-written and fairly sourced so I hate to see it lost entirely as I'm not a deletionist. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm seeing a lot of non-policy based arguments here" -- put WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts on your watchlist and you'll get used to it real quick, trust me. EEng (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep As shown above, Emma Tillman was frequently mentioned in the news starting from the age of 110. This was due a combination of both her longevity and her life story. At the time of her death she was also the World's Oldest Living Person, which makes her even more notable. Also note that many siblings in this family lived to extreme ages, which is an important indicator that longevity is partly due to genetics. 930310 (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - longtime consensus here allows us to keep the articles of the oldest person. I don't see a major change. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where at WP:OUTCOMES (which you link above) is this consensus mentioned? EEng (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not suggest long-time consensus for keeping at all (plenty of deletes and redirects), could you show evidence of long-time consensus? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Every world's oldest person titleholder since 1987 has an article, and it has become the mainstream consensus both inside Wikipedia and in outside sources that the WOP is notable. Why is this particular individual not notable but other people who were the WOP are? It's the same record that they held, and there aren't a lack of sources either. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat Rainbow unicorn's question: evidence for this consensus? That this wikiproject functioned like a walled garden for years, imposing its own idiosyncratic criteria, is not a good reason to keep doing that. And notable or not, there's simply nothing to say about this person apart from their age (WP:NOPAGE again), which can be done quite well in a list. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete One single event (briefly being the oldest person) does not make somebody notable. In addition, EEng hits the nail on its head with WP:NOPAGE: there's simply nothing encyclopedic to say about this person's life. At best, she should be included in an appropriate list. --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep She was the oldest person in the world once which is notable--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject's death received significant coverage in The New York Times (link), Los Angeles Times (link), the New York Daily News (link) the BBC (link), and the The Sydney Morning Herald (link). Prior to her death, she received sustained significant coverage in the Hartford Courant (1997 article, 1998 article, 2000 article, 2002 article, and 2007 article). There are even more sources as posted here by such as a 2002 article in the The Bulletin and a 2005 article in the Journal Inquirer. The sustained significant coverage about Emma Tillman means that she clearly passes Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPAGE says: "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." I believe that in the case of Emma Tillman "understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page". There is extensive information about Emma Tillman in the sources provided. The article can be further expanded based on the sources I linked, and it would be WP:UNDUE weight to merge her article to a page like List of supercentenarians from the United States. WP:NOPAGE further states: "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable" There is no "powerful NOPAGE argument". "Delete" proponents have failed to explain how the topic would become more "understandable" if Emma Tillman is merged to the supercentarian list. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this, but am no longer sure I closed it correctly, so backing out my close and relisting -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see how WP:NOPAGE applies here. There isn't a "tiny" amount of information here and each world's oldest person is an individual in a historical chain. You mean that WP:GNG allows extremely minor sportspeople articles which are just a sentence or two long, but not this? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is much information here and the article could preferably be expanded instead, if some people believe that it is too short. And the whole WP:NOPAGE nomination is proved inaccurate, given the content of this article. 930310 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There's nothing of encyclopedic value here. That's what the NOPAGE argument is and why redirect to a list is the way to go. I'm going to attempt to catalog EVERYTHING that's here. It is precious little.
 * Lede: The first clause is a suitable lede, but the remainder is "horse-race" info that belong in a list. It's who "preceded" her and who "succeeded" her. It's not about her at all. And longevity is not a horse-race.
 * "Early life and family". How many siblings she had. Where she was born and where the family moved to. When her husband died. How old her siblings were. And, this: "Tillman ran her own baking and catering service whose regular customers included Dr. Thomas Hepburn, a noted Hartford Hospital urologist and father to actress Katharine Hepburn." Good golly, really?!
 * "Later life": How old she was when she moved to a nursing home. The rest is additional "horse-race" information. It's not about her. And Longevity is not a horse-race.
 * "Death": When and where she died. This would be appropriate in a list. The rest is additional "horse-race" information. It's not about her. And Longevity is not a horse-race.
 * The coverage of human longevity is a fit and proper subject for an encyclopedia. But stand-alone articles for every long-lived person is not. They're precisely what WP:NOPAGE is about. The idea of old-folks competing for a title, rocking in their chairs while awaiting news of the expiration of one of their rivals is nonsensical, and fairly morbid, to boot. David in DC (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Biographical details about the subject's birthplace, her siblings, where she was raised, her occupation (running a catering service), her husband's death, and her move into a nursing home are encyclopedic. Featured articles like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney contain detailed biographical facts like these. There are many more encyclopedic biographical details about her in the sources I and other editors listed above. These biographical details would be undue weight in a list article. That there are a few unencyclopedic details in the article does not mean the article should be deleted. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, BBC,The Sydney Morning Herald, the Hartford Courant, The Bulletin, and the Journal Inquirer verify numerous encyclopedic biographical details about the subject. Wikipedia should cover a subject who has received sustained coverage and has been covered by numerous very reputable sources. Cunard (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic" is just a fancy word for "ought to be included for this particular subject", and the test for that is whether a given detail serves the reader's understanding of the subject. Biographical elements such as birthplace, siblings, where raised, marriage, and move to nursing home are typically included, because they assisting the reader in understanding the other events in a subject's life which make him or her notable -- entered politics, discovered uranium, invented Coca-Cola, whatever. But when all there is is born, grew, married, widowed, died, then there's no point -- it's just a life like billions of others, just longer. That's where NOPAGE comes in. EEng (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "whether a given detail serves the reader's understanding of the subject" – the biographical details I listed do serve the reader's understanding of Emma Tillman's life. "they assisting the reader in understanding the other events in a subject's life which make him or her notable" – reliable sources provide those biographical elements to help readers understand the events in Emma Tillman's 114-year-long life. "it's just a life like billions of others, just longer" – the reliable sources disagree that she is not worth covering, so they cover Emma Tillman's biographical background in detail. Any biography likewise could be discounted by saying "it's just a life like billions of others, just [insert WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason here]". Cunard (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the fact that these other lives include entering politics, discovering uranium, or inventing Coca-Cola, while this one doesn't have anything like that -- anything out of the ordinary at all, in point of fact, other than being prolonged. And you keep insisting that because sources cover her, she deserves a standalone article; but that's in direct contradiction to WP:N, which says
 * 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 ... "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article ... A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
 * EEng (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why Emma Tillman deserves to have an article. Notability does not mean that the person in question has had to achieve major world-changing accomplishments; in fact, attaining the title of 'World's Oldest Person' is a much rarer feat than becoming, for instance, a major league player. Added to that the fact that Mrs. Tillman HAS appeared in independent coverage outside of the subject - it's not as if she herself published newspaper articles on herself - she meets all requirements for notability on Wikipedia. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, here's an example of someone not having achieved that much, yet still has her own Wikipedia page: Anna Nicole Smith. Only became really famous for marrying a rich, old guy as well as the ensuing court battle over his heritage - not quite the world-changing achievements, yet enough to deserve her a stand-alone article. On top of that, Wikipedia even has articles on unknown sports figures, local politicians, as well as Pokemon figures. What is the intrinsic, encyclopedic value of that? Fiskje88 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Deserving" has nothing to do with notability of being encyclopedic. Some pretty undeserving people still are notable and some very nice, good people are absolutely not notable. And being the world's eldest person is not really comparable with being a great scientist or an accomplished athlete, because that requires dedication and lots of effort, instead of just growing old. And face it, being the oldest person really is a chance thing. If the previous "record holder" had died a couple of days later, she'd never have been the world's oldest. So, yes, there are sources. But no, they don't contain any encyclopedic information so NOPAGE applies and she should be included in a list article. --Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's such a weak argument based almost entirely on your personal opinions which are irrelevant to the discussion. Being the oldest person in the world is not just "growing old". Everyone ages, but not everyone becomes the world's oldest. There's a difference between being able to run and being an elite athlete. Winning an Olympic gold medal is down to chance to a certain extent as well - if another competitor had run a few milliseconds faster then the person might not have won gold. But so what? The fact is that they won a gold medal. And in this case, the fact is that Emma Tillman was the oldest in person in the world, which is an unusual distinction. And what information in the article isn't encyclopedic? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Somebody will grow to be the oldest, that's just simple statistics. It happens, but unlike an Olympic medal, it really is nothing of an accomplishment. None of these people ever set the goal of becoming the oldest person, it was just something that happened to them. To get an Olympic medal you have to put in, you know, a conscious effort... So, no, I don't think these are personal opinions... And face it, even if I would be wrong and being the oldest person is comparable to an Olympic medal, there's absolutely nothing of encyclopedic value that can be said of Tillman. And let me re-iterate what David in DC said below, let's give this a rest. Clearly I'm not going to convince you and equally clearly, you won't convince me. Stop flogging a dead horse. --Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX CommanderLinx (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone's notable, then they're notable, regardless of whether they put in a "conscious effort" or not. I don't think the Queen put in a concious effort to be born in to a royal family but she's still notable. Sorry, but it's entirely your personal opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT again). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Plea This was relisted for others to take part in this AfD discussion. But everything below the "relisted" legend is the same folks rehashing the same arguments in slightly different ways. Pages that feature this sort of endless, tendentious dialogue (multilogue?) tend to discourage sane humans from jumping into the fray. Could we all just refrain from the rehashing and see if some other people have wisdom to share? Please? David in DC (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of discussion that ends up with "no consensus" based on its length but no one actually wants to do that either. I note that it's not the same folks but "new" editors (mostly largely inactive ones who suddenly pop back here) to argue the same idea that's been done before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect Her claimed notability comes from the fact that she lived five days longer than Emiliano Mercado del Toro. This is flimsy at best, I would loath to even call it a one event. This reads like an obituary, there is really nothing of note in the article. It is in some ways sad that a person can live for 115 plus years and the most notable thing about her life is that Kathryn Hepburns dad used to go to her bakery. There must be a list that this could direct to. AIR corn (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above comment is a perfect example of card stacking. It fails to acknowledge that Mrs. Tillman had already become notable before her few days as the WOP; she had been the oldest person in the United States for a longer time than that. On top of that, no matter how long or short her reign was, the fact remains that she has been covered in the media much longer than just those four days; even this year she was mentioned when articles were published questioning why the world's oldest person keeps dying: . An article such as that proves that records remain and that these people, Emma Tillman included, keep being noted for their remarkable achievements. Fiskje88 (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems to me that the two most contentious issues at the moment are whether extreme longevity warrants notability by itself or not and whether there is enough encyclopedic information about the subject to warrant a standalone article or a delete/redirect. After reading through the arguments put forth here, I have legitimate doubts as to whether becoming the world's oldest person is notable enough for a standalone article. Under those circumstances, a redirect to a short section on the person at one of the lists of supercentenarians (List of supercentenarians from the United States, for example) would be more appropriate. Luckily enough for Emma Tillman, I have found and added a broad range of new information to the article based on the following sources:, , , , . She was the first African American to graduate from Glastonbury High School; the governor of North Carolina named a day, November 22nd, after her; she is also famous due to her long history at the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church; and she was discussed in a lecture on environmental philosophy titled "Nature vs. the Tragedy of Emma Faust Tillman’s Death" by Felicia Nimue Ackerman, a notable professor at Brown University, at the Karbank Symposium hosted by Boston University. Given all of this, I think there is indeed enough encyclopedic information beyond longevity for this article to be kept. Yiosie 2356 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep I agree that WOP is not sufficient. However, he fact that other aspects of her life history, especially the daughter of freed slaves and civil rights angles, attracted significant coverage in major newspapers (Hartford Courant, New York Times), and I think this puts her over the top.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I can see why this is such a hard one to determine consensus for. I'm sympathetic to the idea of WP:NOPAGE in this sort of scenario. There can be sufficient sources to justify a claim to notability but not a stand-alone article. Ultimately, however, though there is a salient fact of her age which serves as the basis for this coverage, the coverage in very high-profile sources extends past that. Her age and death may be driven the stories, but if many high-profile sources are going into some depth about other aspects of her life such that what is due weight to include goes beyond the fact of her age and basic biographical data, I have to lean keep. What is encyclopedic is what aspects of a subject receive coverage in reliable sources, and there looks to be just enough here to merit a stand-alone article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:43, 16 November 2015 (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.