Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florrie Baldwin (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nobody wants to keep this and the proposed redirect target section does not exist. A redirect can still be created once it does.  Sandstein  21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Florrie Baldwin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just longevity milestones for other individuals or arbitrary categories, and trivia fluff about her work, diet and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of British supercentenarians (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 6 November 2018 (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.