Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy d'Abreu (2nd 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 redirect to List of British supercentenarians. Fails notability guidelines, but redirected as suggested because there was no reason (in policy) not to do so. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucy d'Abreu
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. WP:NOPAGE applies. — JFG talk 18:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 30 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 oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just longevity milestones for various individuals or arbitrary categories, and trivia fluff about her family and places lived. 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 two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Being so old, and being invetisgated to prove this age and being covered by media isn't enough for notability? Is there any general discussion about this? I don't know if I qualify to vote here. IacobusBr (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @IacobusBr You seem well intentioned, so please understand that there is no guideline or policy that the oldest anything is automatically notable and many thousands of very old people have had their ages investigated, so that's nothing special. It's typical for some media coverage to exist on very old people, but such coverage is typically considered WP:ROUTINE (such as birthday announcements, obituaries, or records) and not WP:SIGCOV of the individual. Unscrupulous editors (many now topic or perma-banned), often with serious conflict of interest issues, in the past treated Wikipedia as a place to create a free web of longevity fan articles on as many very old people as possible without regard to notability because they brought the validation group (GRG) greater publicity (money) and as a hobby. Such articles are being weeded out, like this similar one: 1. Plenty of others have gotten the ax both recently and over the years. This topic area has had a great deal of controversy for over 10 years. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Rest assured you are totally qualified to comment here, as is any editor in good standing. Thank you for your contribution! For ongoing discussion about notability of individual supercentenarians, please take a look at WT:LONGEVITY. — JFG talk 11:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of British supercentenarians (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection to a redirect for this one. — JFG talk 11:45, 4 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.