Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Lang (supercentenarian)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethel Lang (supercentenarian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle   Faddle  21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Article passes notability standards. oldest person in UK and The last United Kingdom resident who was born in during the reign of Queen Victoria is notable. In addition, the source of this article is not incomplete. you personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is shall not reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete This person definitely belongs on the lists where she appears (although five lists on this topic, as indicated under the "See also" heading, does seem a bit excessive.) But there's nothing in this article that's particularly notable. Simply living a long time is not notable as that term is defined on Wikipedia; the only coverage in reliable sources is news items about successive birthdays and an obit. WP:NOPAGE. Also, nearly half of the article is filled with either information about her non-notable relatives and their ages or information about other "title-holders" and which "record-setters" succeeded which for each mythical "title". This is the stuff of trivia contests and hobbyist websites, not an encyclopedia. Human longevity is an important, encyclopedic topic. But not every long-lived person is notable simply because of their long life. David in DC (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Being the oldest person in a country of 60 million, one of the oldest people ever, and the last subject of Queen Victoria is not notable? And you're concerned about the lack of sourcing? Oh well yeah, I suppose if you just ignore all the reliable sources she was covered in. This kind of attitude ("people can't be notable for longevity and I don't care what you say la la la") is typical of many involved in the WP:BATTLEGROUND on longevity-related articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ollie hit the nail on the head right there. This has devolved to the point that one editor was BLOCKED for this scenario - DN-boards1, and while I agree that their block was COMPLETELY justified - they violated civility - that does not mean every SC and centenarian article made by said user, or related to said user, is worthy of deletion! --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet of User:DN-boards1 who already voted above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I gave a revision and add sources to this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG as she was covered in the media for successive birthdays, being the oldest person in Britain, and being the last British subject of Queen Victoria. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted, including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Per the exact reason I stated here on one of the many other articles that this editor nom'd for AFD (citing WP:NOTDIR with articles about oldest living humans).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. If notability and depth of coverage is the issue, redirect to List of British supercentenarians as an alternative. clpo13(talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comments here and keep in mind that notability is not temporary. She was clearly for being the oldest living person in the United Kingdom, and that notability does not end with death. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am One of Many - After reviewing everything again, I agree and I've changed my vote back. See my explanation above.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although being the oldest person in the United Kingdom is not, in itself, reason to justify a standalone article, the vast amount of media coverage given to Ethel Lang from various reliable sources certainly allows for such an article to exist. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A large amount of media coverage is available, and other factors mentioned in these sources (e.g. being the last British subject of Queen Victoria) indicate notability beyond simply longevity. Yiosie  2356 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person in X Country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 21 October 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.