Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Farrell


 * 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 delete and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians. Based on analysis of the sources I'm not seeing an argument that the non-policy based voting can overcome the GNG. N is forever so currently being the oldest person is not the be all that some voters would like it to be. I think any feat of that magnitude requires a significant level of sources to show its a big deal. That is clearly not the case here. Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethel Farrell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another non-notable supercentenarian. Attempt has been made by both User:Waenceslaus and User:Ollie231213 to "expand" the article but we still see no information that isn't already available (and already sourced) in List of Australian supercentenarians and elsewhere. Simply living to a certain age does not make someone notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is information that isn't elsewhere. What you have linked above is not a guideline, but an essay. That represents the opinions of the people who wrote it, but that doesn't make it Wiki policy. Personally I think that the oldest person in a country is notable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As with any pre 90s article sources are next to none impossible to find which is why leniency is given, Personally I think expanding the article is better than deleting imho. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - But this isn't a "pre 90s" article. The sourcing isn't there because there hasn't been much coverage on her. The most recent article on her was in November 2012 for her 110th birthday. The only recent information I could find is a brief one sentence mention that simply states she is the oldest living Australian back in October 2014. Ollie231213, what "information" is in this article that isn't already present in List of Australian supercentenarians? CommanderLinx (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Biographical information (marriage, descendants, health habits). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has been recently expanded and new sources have been added. User:CommanderLinx, by admitting that the GRG is the reliable source, there appears the need for you to consider those, who are verified by the Gerontology Research Group as the oldest living people in their respective countries, as notable. Only one person can be the country's oldest resident at a time. Mrs. Farrell has been recognized by the media and the proper citations have been provided for the article. Moreover, there is great probability, that the article will be expanded further. -- Waenceslaus (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Mrs. Farrell is listed by the Gerontology Research Group among the Validated Living Supercentenarians as of May 1, 2015. Here is the link: http://www.grg.org/Adams/TableE.html -- Waenceslaus (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - How does a mention in a GRG table establish notability? Yes, sources have been added but they contain no new information that is not already available in List of Australian supercentenarians. Again, living to a certain age does not make someone notable. Pinging User:DerbyCountyinNZ who also has experience in this topic area. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pinging someone you know will agree with you. Do we all get to "phone a friend"? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Every information, which is not merely a mention of name in a table serves here as a new piece of information, which is not available in List of Australian supercentenarians. These include the detailed information about the person's life, the citations of which have been provided. Living to a supercentenarian age, in my honest opinion, does make someone notable. It does even more if the person is the oldest resident of her respective country, which is a fact in Mrs. Farrell's case. -- Waenceslaus (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mrs Farrell is the oldest person in Australia. And most of the info in the article is not on the list of Australian SC's. So that's why I'm going for keep.
 * To CommanderLinx: Why do you want to "destroy" longevity and supercentenarian articles? That's all you do these days, isn't it? I can name countless supercentenarian articles that you have tried to delete for no good reason! -- Bensonfood (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (Greenwich Mean Time)


 * Keep - Being the oldest resident in a specific country is enough for me to vote in favor of keeping one's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just wanted to say 2 things:
 * 1. New information has been added that is not present in the list of Australian SC's, which is why we should keep Ethel's article.


 * 2. Sorry for my overreaction there. -- Bensonfood (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2015 (Greenwich Mean Time)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Question - Can any of the above "keep votes" explain how she passes the WP:GNG when there is nothing available on her after November 2012? Or do we keep this article because of encyclopedic information such as "she used to smoke" and "has children and grandchildren"? Coverage is minimal at best and again, the sources in this article tell us nothing of value that is not already present in List of Australian supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to List of Australian supercentenarians. As noted above, debatable/negligible encyclopedic content and nothing to justify a separate article. No indication of WP:SIGCOV. Note that almost all the entries at List of British supercentenarians have more substantial content than this article. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 07:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in my opinion, being the oldest person in a country qualifies one for notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians.  Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians. I don't see being the oldest person in a country as inherently notable. I was expecting that she would meet WP:GNG, but it just isn't there. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep opposed to delete. She is not only Australia's oldest living person, but second oldest person ever born in India, 9th oldest Australian ever (If she is alive until October 2015, It will become third oldest Australian person ever) and last known living Australian person to have been born before 1905. I think that article of Orma Slack is should be deleted than this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources provide her as the oldest living person of a major country which should convey notability, information like "she smokes" provide historical context of her field (centenarian), she has reached the top of her field. GuzzyG (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some analysis of sources would be really helpful unravelling this. There are a lot of no policy based votes here that make finding a consensus extremely hard. Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to List of Australian supercentenarians. Being the oldest in a country is not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   07:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Article currently has 3 sources: 1 is from the GRG which establishes her age but confers no notability, 1 (from 2012) mentions that she has become a supercentenarian which is not the notability claimed for her and 1 is a passing mention in a story about her predecessor as oldest Australian. In short none of the sources are sufficient to justify an article about the notability claimed. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nailed it. I will also add that the WP:WOP wikiproject states that articles such as this one should be redirected to a list as sources don't demonstrate notability and don't provide significant details on anything but her longevity. As DerbyCountyinNZ shows and I stated above, these sources tell us nothing interesting that isn't already available (and sourced) at List of Australian supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one source confirming her age is verified, one confirming that she is the oldest Australian, and one that gives biographical details. For an article which is currently only a stub, that isn't bad. All are reliable sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, on the basis she's already listed appropriately at List of Australian supercentenarians. Supercentenarians are much more common these days, as evidenced by the tiny amount of news coverage about her so far. Fails WP:GNG at the moment. Sionk (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, Mrs. Ethel Farrell is the oldest person of her country, Australia. That makes her very notable person. The authenticity of her age has been confirmed by the Gerontology Research Group and details from her life are given in articles, published on her topic. All the citations mentioned are provided for the article. What is more, its further development is excepted. Waenceslaus (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You said that 4 weeks ago and no other news coverage has been forthcoming, so further development is unlikely, wouldn't you think? Sionk (talk) 17:30, 3 June 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.