Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ettie Mae Greene


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Between the NYT obit, and that she was once listed in the Guiness Book of Records, there is enough notability to prevent me from merging into List of American supercentenarians as I have a couple others. If others feel a merge is better, that does not require AfD. Resolute 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ettie Mae Greene

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Under-referenced stub on a very old person. She did have a 93-word obituary in the New York Times, which sounds like promising suggestion of more detailed coverage in local papers, but a google search throws up only 46 hits, with no substantial coverage in relaible sources. The article refers to "an interview in 1991", but no references are provided, and I speculate that this may be original research (some supercentenarian-trackers interview their subjects). Without substantive coverage in reliable sources, this fails WP:BIO, so I suggest merger to List of American supercentenarians. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge per nom. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep New York times obit, the interview in 1991 was referenced there. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply The 1991 interview was mentioned, but not referenced. There is no evidence that any contributor to the article even knows where the interview was published. The only actual citation is the 93-word NYT obituary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Put simply, we have always without acception accepted a true obit in the NYT, even a short one, as evidence of notability, because of their very selective standards. better them than us--they're more professional and objective.DGG (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 93 words is hardly a "true obit"; it's a short death notice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. As per users "Kitia" and "DGG". Extremely sexy (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.