Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Backman Shull


 * 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. The current consensus is that the oldest resident ever of each US state is notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Leila Backman Shull

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable supercentenarian who has little information on her aside from her age, lifespan, and the fact she was a homemaker that was fond of gardening. RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. As rare as I suppose it is to live to that age, the other supercentenarians I looked at all seem to have something more notable - though, for example, Marcella Humphrey is an exception I came across. -- alex.muller (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney talk 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You may be new, but per reasons for deletion, failing to meet a relevant notability guideline is definitely a reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. She will be the new entry on the state age record-holders for South Carolina. If you delete it, then you have a link on that table that goes nowhere.  If the fact that she appears on the table as a record-holder is not enough to keep her as an article...then the table is not important enough for keeping either.24.144.29.117 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you explain this for me? --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:WAX is not valid reasoning.  Thin boy  00  @169, i.e. 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the consensus reached re List of American supercentenarians and other national articles, articles should exist for individuals where there is sufficient independent evidence to support the >109 claim, as is the case here. While notability is established in this case, if there were any issues regarding individual notability, the article should be merge/redirected to the parent article List of American supercentenarians. Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. As per the anonymous user, and she has more than enough inline references plus reaching age 113 is notable in itself too though. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - about the only thing said about her is that she lived a long time. Only references refer to her death - if she were notable enough for an article, you would have thought there would be multiple references while she was alive. And being the record-holder for an individual American state - means very little. If she was the National record holder, yes fair enough, but just South Carolina - no. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just simply not true, and proof is here. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - relevant bit of my statement above struck. Still can't see her being close to passing the bar of notability though*. - fchd (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rt . 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. She's a record holder within a US state for her age, which should be notable. I don't know if this will or can ever be expanded to a decent size, though, given the lack of sources that are likely to exist.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:29, 2 January 2008 (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.