Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Weaver


 * 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) 00:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Gertrude Weaver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle   Faddle  21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy-based reason, or are we to understand this nomination as based simply on a I just don't like it argument? The article certainly has plenty of sources to establish notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete the world oldest person article?...It is incorrect. also, this article has been created with the other 20 languages of Wikipedia. This person is well-known, there is no reason to be deleted. You're why hated so much longevity article? I do not understand the meaning of your action.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

*Strong Keep This is getting ridiculous now. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Obviously. 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) 22:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Per Ollie231213, and this.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep For the same reason given here. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Being the world's oldest person is highly notably with lots of reliable independent coverage. Gap9551 (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Obviously a non-policy based nomination of a clearly notable and well-sourced article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Depth of coverage establishes notability. clpo13(talk) 20:28, 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)   22:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Oshwah, on this reasoning, shouldn't all of the thousands of articles on athletes such as Alan Simpson (athlete)—notable only for an event—be deleted? --I am One of Many (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am One of Many - I will make the assumption that the person you mentioned only has sources related to the event mentioned in the article. I think that your argument is completely valid, and it helps emphasize my underlying concerns: the WP:1E guideline, and exactly what defines highly significant events, is ambiguous and not 100% clear. With such ambiguity and the lack of a clear definition, one (for example) could argue that Presidential assassinations or high profile killings aren't highly significant in their culture or mind. There goes David Chapman, John Wilkes Booth, Timothy McVeigh, and Lee Harvey Oswald! Of course, we know that a Presidential assassination clearly doesn't fall under WP:1E per being a highly significant event (I was just simply using this as an example), but it asserts my point - the ambiguity of WP:1E and lack of clear definitions and details opens the door for inconsistent article deletions and closures, as well as the possibility of miss-translations between one person and another. Precedents absolutely should not be the only method that is available to use as an appropriate reference behind AfD vote discussion, and I feel that the problems with WP:1E mentioned have been contributing to the need to do just that - resort explicitly to old AfD's in the past.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: After getting some preliminary input and opinions from other editors, I've decided to draft a proposed change to WP:1E and expand the guideline. It will seek to define highly significant events compared to events that are not, as well as provide a list of standards that can be used in determining events as highly significant event. After the draft is finished, I'll run it by RFC. Also, see this Afd regarding a similar article currently nominated; editors in rebuttal have responded with very strong arguments (IMO). I'm considering whether or not to change my vote back to "Keep".  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. Sorry for all of the redacting. I found the essay that I was missing knowledge of, and I'm 100% back on board now :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Mrs. Weaver's period as the oldest person in the USA as well as the oldest person in the world gained her reliable media attention from around the world; as such, she passes WP:GNG. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Article is very well referenced from multiple reliable sources, and being the world's oldest person on top of that means that this article clearly meets WP:GNG. Yiosie 2356 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Same reasoning at Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier (who was the oldest person, the oldest woman, the oldest Frenchever ever, and the oldest nun) of which Weaver has accomplished half of. All sources are WP:ROUTINE obituaries and news articles about her age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * News coverage like this is clearly not routine. How many times has your birthday been reported in the news? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person in X Country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 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.