Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Baines


 * 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, some of the keep opinions are not based on policies or guidelines however there is genuine disagreement over whether the sources establish enough notability for a seperate article. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gertrude Baines

 * – (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) 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not a short snippit, it is actually start class. I reverted you twice, BHG, because I though that being the oldest in California, one of the oldest in the world, and in the top 90 oldest people is qualified for notability and because I think it can stand against an AFD. If all else fails, at least about half the article is in the List. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Please read WP:BIO, which does not list "oldest in California" as a criterion for notability, and this article does not cite substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:BIO totaly forgot about the oldest people. There in no offical line where super-oldsters become notable. She is in the top 100, and is one of the oldest people now. And she's the oldest in California...&#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't forget. It's a bad criterion to use.  That someone is the (documented) oldest person somewhere justifies their inclusion in a list in an article discussing oldest people.  It doesn't justify that person having a biographical article. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Kitia. You&#39;ve Got Mail! (talk) 22:15, 8 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) 00:27, 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) 01:30, 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 This appears to be a bad faith nomination in retaliation over the edit conflict in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. There was no edit conflict, just an objection to my attempt to merge a non-notable article rather than AfDing it. If mergers are simply reverted on sight, then the solution is to take it to AfD and let the community assess the article on its merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, if you thought the information was worth keeping in a merged list, then its worth keeping either here or back at the merged list. When the merge was reversed, you nominated the article for deletion, thats bad faith. Its a type of disruption, rather than working for consensus on who should be in the merged list and who should get a stand alone article. Consensus takes time, and negotiation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear not to have read the nomination, where I recommend merger, and you appear not to understand (or not be able to acknowledge) that the issue I was addressing was what to do with information which did not meet the criteria for a standalone article. Since there was no consensus for merger, and the article did not meet WP:BIO, the two viable options seemed to me to be deletion or merger, which is why I brought the article here precisely to seek consensus. I'm rather fed up with your repeated bad faith allegations of disruption, because it would have been perfectly reasonable of me to have simply taken the article straight to AfD rather than first trying to salvage a little bit of it through merger, an option which not everyone supports. In your enthusiasm for personal attacks on me, you repeatedly ignore the fact the merged lists were kept at AfD, and that Kitia has been instantly reverting any effort to merge non-notable articles into the lists based her notion that WP:BIO should be read as if it offered presumed notability for very old people, even though it offers no such presumption. The result of all this is that I will no longer waste time trying to merge anything from these non-notable stubs, because if you take an attempt at merger as evidence of bad faith, then I might as well spare myself from the abuse and go straight to AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not currently notable as per WP:BIO. - Gallo glass  12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Because if the 4th oldest person is nominated for deletion, so should the 5th, 6th, and 7th. (As well as 8th, 9th, and 10th). Okay, good idea! Neal (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
 * That's not how WP:BIO works. The 597th-oldest person in the world would be notable if there was sufficient substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me I'm getting the message that WP:BIO is more about sourceability, citationbility, and referenceability, then about being notable. Neal (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * besides being notable, we need to be able to write an article. DGG (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — I'll bust your beak! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep There are multiple articles about this person - CNN, CBS and LA Sentinel to name only three. Please explain why this would not amount to notability. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:52, 12 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.