Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Wiggins


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Linda Wiggins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD, on spurious grounds. Non-notable supercentenarian. As established through many discussions simply being the oldest person in a country is not inherently notable, and the sources are simple routine coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD nomination on spurious grounds as coverage of a 110 year old is hardly routine and the article already contains significant coverage in reliable sources such as The New Zealand Herald. Also these articles are not straightforward as a number of them have gone to deletion review where there has been many opposing views, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a couple of one-off articles. That's the definition of routine. And the DRVs in question had a huge and well-documented problem with massive off-wiki canvassing, so they're mostly useless for determining the actual consensus on these articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sustained coverage from at least 2013-2018 (link by Newshunter12 below) so its not routine coverage and the subject easily passes WP:GNG. Therefore this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination based on an interpretation of past consensus unless you can point to a policy reason for deletion, perhaps in WP:NOT, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources in question are 4 news articles indicating she's celebrating One More Day Above The Roses, with no information other than she's lived a long time and had an extremely ordinary life. Other than updating her age, they're all a rehash of the same information easily recognized (at least on people with less than a 3-digit age) as thoroughly routine. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the fourth oldest x" is notable (The article incorrectly claims she is the oldest in the country, but the NZ Herald says she is the 4th oldest). The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to her family's death dates or false claims to a longevity milestone, with some fluff about where she has lived and her secret to longevity. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of supercentenarians by continent, where they are easier to view. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 09:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the oldest person in a substantial country like NZ is obviously not routine; it's a unique distinction and so the subject passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Andrew D. New Zealand is a small remote country and this individual is not even the oldest living person in New Zealand according to this very recent reliable source 1, but the fourth. There is also no policy or guideline that the oldest anything is notable or entitled to an article on Wikipedia. The oldest person in the U.S. doesn't even have an article because that is never an automatic grant of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which of the three criteria of WP:ANYBIO does she pass? Definitely not 3, definitely hasn't made any contributions to a specific field and "being old" doesn't grant awards/honors. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Fails WP:GNG as coverage is local and routine birthday articles. Even if these local articles made her "notable", there's nothing in this article that can't easily be summarised on a list as it won't expand beyond "Born, got married, had kids, grandkids, etc and got old". CommanderLinx (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect As per nom and others. Per WP:NOPAGE. Insufficient encyclopedic content to justify an article. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to list where she is mentioned, List of supercentenarians by continent. The news coverage is sparse and mostly redundant.  The only potential claim to notability is being the oldest person who lived in a small country (I don't see NZ as a "substantial country", as someone said above, if it has a population smaller than cities I've lived in).  I just don't see how the standard of "received significant coverage" as required by WP:BIO is met.  TimBuck2 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SportingFlyer  talk  22:11, 5 November 2018 (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.