Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leona Tuttle


 * 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.

Leona Tuttle
The result was delete and rest in peace Ms Tuttle (non-admin close Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian  Paul  16:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently nonnotable (I could find no sources other than the single one in the article) and her life was utterly pedestrian i.e. there's nothing worth saying about her in the article, other than that she lived a long time. WP:NOPAGE EEng (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is article is a paraphrase of a single obituary. And since the link is dead, we don't even know if it's an accurate paraphrase. For all we know, it could be, on the one hand, inaccurate or, on the other hand, a copyright violation. More importantly, it fails our general notability guideline - as longevity alone is not notable - our rule requiring significant coverage in multiple independent sources, WP:NOT (specifically WP:MEMORIAL) and WP:NOPAGE. Please make it go away. David in DC (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Apparently [User talk:EEng] and [User:David in DC] didn't actually bother checking for articles about Mrs. Tuttle, or they are simply not experienced enough to find such articles...
 * SWFL woman celebrates 110th birthday (NBC 2, 14 April 2006)
 * An afternoon with Leona Tuttle (Naples Daily News, 11 May 2006)
 * Leona Tuttle, Detroit Woman who loved to dance, travel dies at 111 (The Detroit News, 8 December 2007)
 * So Mrs. Tuttle was featured in the media at least three times, and likely several more as well. 930310 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. She was never the oldest living person in the U.S., much less the world, and she has no other claims to fame. There are thousands of supercentenarians, and obviously they can't all have their own articles. Having multiple sources only indicates media interest; it means nothing if the content doesn't establish clear notability per WP:NOPAGE. Yiosie  2356 23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand-alone article. Not opposed to a selective merge/redirect elsewhere if there's an appropriate target. (She was not, I presume, "validated" by the Gerontology Research Group, or she would be at List of supercentenarians from the United States? -- I didn't know about that requirement for inclusion until just now and admittedly have not looked closer). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , the idea that GRG should have some special status as gatekeeper for articles/lists about the very old is perhaps the lynchpin of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN that is longevity-related articles on WP -- see e.g.[]. EEng (talk) 04:07, 16 November 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.