Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luo Meizhen (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 keep.  Sandstein  20:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Luo Meizhen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe. Recommend merge to appropriate Longevity Claims list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB, possibly mentioning there that she was stubborn and lived in a shed. EEng (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't discussion about merging be handled on the talk page, or by an RFC? This is after all "Articles for deletion". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggested earlier this fall that this kind of thing be handled via merge discussions on the article talk page. But it was felt that, because of the decade-long history of puppetry and disruption associated with longevity, the more public process at AfD would be preferable. EEng (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment this perfectly illustrates the problem with these articles. One specialized group (in China) says she was 127 but another (western) group says they don't agree - and declare this or that person is the real oldest. I was just saying there are likely older people in China but that country is not counted in the "world's oldest" and "asia's oldest" breathing contest. It's a big guessing game.  Delete Legacypac (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One group in China say she was 127, but no one else seems to agree, so that's a WP:FRINGE theory. Documentation in China is very poor, so it's very difficult to prove Chinese longevity claimants' ages. Nothing to do with China being "left out". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The longevity claim is disputed. There are no unambiguous sources to support any claim of notability. One based on longevity alone would not be enough, but it might at least support a merge or a redirect. Here, there's nothing notable to move to any longevity list.  I don't oppose meerging it with longevity claims or longevity myths, but neither would I be troubled if this thing were simply deleted. I cannot imagine what a "keep" rationale for this turkey of an article would be, but I suppose I'll soon find out. David in DC (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Article rescued by RAN and DC. The turkey is transformed into a swan. DiDC volunteers for a WP:TROUT David in DC (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to relevant list per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Longevity claims. Coverage in reliable sources establishes notability per WP:GNG. If there's not much "worthwhile" information then a mini-biography could be created elsehwere. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep  there are enough reliable sources giving information. The controversy need to be explained in detail. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Was featured many times in the media due to her claimed age. If she doesn't meet the GNG-requirements she should be merged to a relevant list, such as the one proposed by Ollie231213. 930310 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The question here on Wikipedia is not the pursuit of truth; it's notability and verifiablity. Wikipedia has articles about grey aliens, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist. The claim of notability here is clear, and the reliable and verifiable coverage about the individual covers the claim of extreme age to provide an appropriate encyclopedic article. Alansohn (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are huge amounts worth saying about aliens, bigfoot, and Nessie, so standalone articles are appropriate. Not so here. EEng (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And there's more than enough to say here about Luo Meizhen. It was the nomination (and a number of delete votes) that is based primarily on the argument that this is a "Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe", though you acknowledge that there is no obstacle here, whether the claim is true or not. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * there's more than enough to say here about Luo Meizhen: Really? Because the entirety of what the article says about her is this:
 * She was one of the Yao people and lived in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (GZAR), in a small village in Bama county known for the longevity of many of its residents, including a 106-year-old woman and 113-year-old man (in 2011). She lived in a shed with her 63-year-old grandson and his son. She was described as a nice, but stubborn woman with a strong character.
 * It was the nomination (and a number of delete votes) that is based primarily on the argument that this is a "Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe": No, the nomination is about NOPAGE, as in "Recommend merge to appropriate Longevity Claims list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB".
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've already voted. All you've done is repeat the same claims that have been rebutted already. Maybe you need to ask your favorite admin to shill for you here as well. Maybe its time you said farewell to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk. I guess this means you won't be explaining how the three sentences above comprise "more than enough to say" about the subject. EEng (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the !wikilaw? What is the minimal number of words for an article, below which we delete? WP:NOPAGE (whether to create standalone pages) and WP:PERMASTUB (essay) do not mention the exact number. You keep referring to it as if it does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a matter for editorial judgment of course, but I think in general three short sentences doesn't qualify. EEng (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So four sentences make a sufficient article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "sufficiency" -- this isn't about meeting some threshold to be "good enough" for a standalone article. The question, again, is how to best present what there is to say about the subject. If there's so little to say that it can easily be said in a list entry, or in a minibio as discussed here . The three short sentences in the article now probably fit. But there's no magic number of course -- sorry. EEng (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I am seeing tons of coverage and age is a notable achieve though this does appear to be dubious. Valoem   talk   contrib  15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't at issue so coverage has nothing to do with it. EEng (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable, converting to nothing but a list entry diminishes the usability of the encyclopedia. Merging would result in clutter. A stand-alone page is definitely what we need for this and similar persons. Jacona (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Albeit disputed, her claim of longevity is clearly notable, from the level of coverage both before and after her death. There is enough information from the sources to write a standalone Wikipedia biography about her. "Ironically, Luo may have just been too old, as China had not built a reliable birth certificate system until decades after her birth" (Medical Daily) sums up the sentiment quite well. Deryck C. 19:22, 9 December 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.