Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flossie Page


 * 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. Mr.  Z- man  06:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Flossie Page

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established per WP:BIO, so I merged it to List of American supercentenarians. Merger reverted twice, so I suggest deletion: this short snippet belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC) "I have objection at all to unmerger if notability has been established per WP:BIO, but if you persist in simply reverting the merger without improving the articles to meet WP:BIO, then I will simply save myself the time and nominate them at AfD. ... Your call. ... It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed." That, I believe, is a bad faith nomination. I am not against the merger of the smaller articles, but everyone has to perform some due diligence before they nominate, and it wasn't done here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is established as the oldest person ever in Kansas. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral: If being a supercentenarian is no longer notable in and of itself then it should not exist as a category and any such names either listified or removed -- the same for centenarians, who are less notable even. Soxthecat (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Please read WP:NOTE an WP:BIO: very few subjects are notable of themselves, they are notable because of the coverage they have recieved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * HALT -- this article and another were unmerged from an article that passed notability, and were tagged for AFD as revenge from an administrator (BHG) for not merging them back in the vein of beauracracy run amuck. Read more at []. Guroadrunner (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Not so. The article did not establish notability, so I merged it as an alternative to deletion. I nominated it for deletion because when unmerged it still failed to establish notability. There is no revenge involved; if the article passes WP:BIO, it should stay, but otherwise it should be merged or deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Retraction. It appears that the articles are being duplicated with a fork from Kitia, hence why the AFD for these articles that were separated from the main list they belong in. Recommend merge. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep BrownHairedGirl Bad Faith Nomination.   --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you learn some basic manners, and not immediately leap to allegations of bad faith when you find references which both the article's creators and I had missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very well mannered, but I am not going to ignore a bad faith nomination to retaliate against your merger proposal, and I am not going to ignore sloppy research. You said you did research, and didn't find any references, but all I did was type the name into Google and found many reliable ones. When you nominate something for deletion, as opposed to using a reference tag, you are certifying that you thoroughly searched, and found no reliable sources. This wasn't the case. I can only think that you did it in haste or anger or both. I get angry and frustrated too, it is a part of being human. I read the comment you left:
 * As you ought to know, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are ill-mannered. The situation is simple: I could quite legitimately have simply started by nominating these article for AfD as notability-not-established, without going to all the trouble of trying to merge them and preserve the info when it did not meet the criteria for a standalone article. The conclusion I drew yesterday was that this is a stupid waste of my time, because the very fact of having put a lot of effort into trying to achieve a compromise solution leads some ill-mannered people to assume bad faith when that route is blocked without notability being demonstrated, so my days of mergeism are over. In future, if an article doesn't meet notability standards, I'll take it directly to AfD and save myself the abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as per WP:BIO also poorly sourced. - Gallo glass  12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like another factoid, as well as a re-write of a website (such as an obituary or birthday). I'm starting to feel webpages are not worthy of having their own Wikipedia article. Neal (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC).