Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Hannah (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable supercentenarian. FailsWP:GNG as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources in the article, two are from the GRG which are simple names in a table. The third source is a mention in a footnote that states her case "escaped media notice". Nothing here that establishes notability let alone a standalone article. Article also tells us NOTHING that isn't already available in List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest women and Oldest people. So even if notable, WP:NOPAGE would certainly apply.

Note: There was clearly some off-Wiki canvassing going on during the previous AFD so a much better discussion should happen now that some of the SPA's have been cleared out. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She is one of the oldest person ever, and Articles for deletion/Lucy Hannah (2nd nomination) (7 months ago) result was keep. survived two prior AFDs, clearly notable.--Inception2010 (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except there is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being old makes you notable". Prior AFD was sock infested so there should be a better discussion now. Can you also address the sourcing and the NOPAGE problems? There is literally nothing in this article that isn't available in one of the four or so lists she's on. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that "Article also tells us NOTHING that isn't already available in List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest women and Oldest people." and "There is literally nothing in this article that isn't available in one of the four or so lists she's on." is wrong. Information that being she was claimed to be a year older is does not exist in List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest women and Oldest people.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    09:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    09:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what Commander should have said is Article also tells us NOTHING WORTH MENTIONING that isn't already available in [etc]. EEng (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to appropriate list. Another nothing-article. EEng (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete since the whole thing (outside very basic bio) is a collection of unsourced unverified standings in the mythical longevity Olympics. Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There are not sufficient non-trivial, reliable sources to satisfy the requirements of WP:N and the circumstances surrounding this "case" make it obvious that they do not exist, as noted in the nomination. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that longevity is in and of itself notable, so that is not a reason to keep this article. Canadian   Paul  22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been steadily kept at two different AfDs. WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY should apply here. Also sources indicates that the facts stated are true. Being the oldest ever from a certain US state is as notable as being the oldest from a country. WP:GNG also applies. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument that an article should be kept because it survived prior AfDs is absurd, since if it was valid we'd never have more than one AfD for a given article, not to mention that the prior AfDs are SPA-infested. And, of course, I take it you can't point to any policy or guideline providing that state-level oldsters are inherently notably (which would be ridiculous, since we'd have thousands and thousands of these article, by that reasoning). EEng (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Really? the second oldest person ever in the U. S. and the world's third oldest human ever recorded isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 20 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Really. Notability is based on coverage, not status. EEng (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, according to Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing, the second oldest American and third oldest human at that time was not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbella Ewing was just second oldest living American and third oldest living person during lifetime. not second oldest American ever and third oldest human ever. "(World's) third oldest person ever" and "(World's) third oldest person" are different types of extremes of longevity, you know?--Inception2010 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tomato, tomoto, neither were ever the oldest. Strip all the nth oldest now then ever never and you have a the details that go on a headstone, not a biography. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to the American supercentenian list as was done for Arbella Ewing, the last second old American and third oldest human being listed. Consensus is that reliable sources are needed and they aren't here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * there is no information here that is not better presented on a list. I tried reorganizing the seemingly conflicting claims to her rank, but it still says she was both the oldest and 2nd oldest American, presumably because someone passed her later. When the next person passes her, do we remember to update this non-bio attempt at writing ? Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How often does the 3rd oldest human OF ALL TIME get passed? Seriously? You've also voted twice now. GuzzyG (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep If you're going to delete super centenarian articles start from bottom to the top, not the top from bottom, top three aged human in history IS NOTABLE. NTEMP and all that, it's a shame she died in 1993 and not 2013. Not to mention this got 12681 views in 90 days are we really going to send these people to a list? AFD is not cleanup for bad articles.. GuzzyG (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * opps - fixed that. A lot of these non-bio bios look alike. To pass WP:NTEMP would require actual coverage of her life. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, there is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being old makes you notable". Can you address the clear failure of WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in sources and the NOPAGE issue? There is nothing in this "article" that isn't easily available on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep If being old is not notable then Jeanne Calment is not notable, and no-one is suggesting her page should be deleted. I think the oldest black person ever is notable even if the article is sparse. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeanne Calment got extensive press and other coverage in RS so passes GNG. This subject, not so much. Legacypac (talk)


 * 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.