Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Branyas Morera


 * 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 Speedy keep; no realistic prospect of deletions. Additionally, I'm going to remove the "oldest person in the world" part from WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, as we've had three successive such biographies survive AfD (hence, it can't really be described as a common outcome) and there's a general recognition that the oldest person in the world should, generally, pass GNG (non-admin closure). Sceptre (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

María Branyas Morera

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only known for being the world's oldest living person. If she were to die today, I don't think it would survive an AfD. Interstellarity (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. That is a very notable property. We must watch this article as long as she's alive. Georgia guy (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Georgia guy: I understand your viewpoint regarding being notable for being the oldest living person in the world. As an encyclopedia, we should be aiming towards long term usage. There will likely be a new oldest living person in the years ahead. We don't have an article for everyone who has held the title of oldest living person and there is a reasonable chance it would not survive a future AfD even if this article does survive AfD. I think we should wait until she lives to a certain age before recreating the article. Interstellarity (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. We always give the confirmed oldest person in the world it's own article. I don't see why it should not be the case here. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless it's proven someone else is the oldest person, she deserves her article. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say that being the oldest living person gives the subject enough notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article. Many other people who are notable almost entirely for their longevity also have their own Wikipedia page. If the subject did die today, being the oldest living person for less than a day is surely very notable and exceptional in and of itself! I do agree that the the page requires expansion and an overhaul as I’m concerned that some of the little information within the article is inaccurate. JackTaylor6464 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep She is the oldest, and even if she dies, we should still keep the article in her honor, as we do with other supercentenarians. Taiwanexplorer36051 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * The closest in history according to oldest people is four days, unless proven otherwise.
 * Other hand;  Keep  Although some previous longest living people in the list don't have articles, the last few Kane Tanaka, Lucile Randon, Nabi Tajima had either a page or a redirect. And I think I saw an article about María Branyas Morera that was recent, following the passing of Lucile Randon. We can also use the GRG as a source for some basic info, like birthdate confirmation, age, so on, just to be safe. The article appears to be decent now that I don't think it can be straight up deleted with the sources found now.

TheCorriynial (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Edit: Found the article: https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/catalonias-maria-branyas-becomes-oldest-living-person-on-earth-at-115. Its got some info and it even mentioned a interview done in 2019. That, plus anything else, could be enough.


 * Keep. Per above; I feel being the oldest living person is relevant enough to warrant a page. Wiki O&#39;Ryan (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The oldest living person at a given time is notable. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES (also copied in my comment at 12:36 18/01 below). _ MB190417  _ (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Now, i'm not just gonna go ahead and say "Oh, she's the oldest living person in the world. That means she must have an article" even though I do agree. After all, she would still need some coverage from reliable sources and have to follow the WP:GNG guidelines. What I feel must happen is that we need to wait first. She just became the oldest living person today. Extensive coverage will hopefully come throughout the week as people start to look into her after she becomes the oldest living person. Plus, " If she were to die today, I don't think it would survive an AfD." is not a convincing argument. You have no idea is she will die today or if she will live for another 8 months like Lucile Randon. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Has been reported on by many reliable sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete She's covered in articles talking about the French nun that died, that was the next oldest person. She lives in Spain and survived COVID. Beyond that, well, she's old. There's nothing notable about any one of these things. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment For all those that claim that "being the oldest living person is notable" note that three such women failed Afd and and the articles were redirected to a list, and of those only one had sufficient information for a mini bio. Unless the article reaches the stage where it passes WP:NOPAGE/WP:PERMASTUB then a stand-alone article is not justified. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 01:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the oldest living person inherently satisfies notability requirements. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per those above. Wide coverage of the subject shows notability and thus meets WP:GNG. As an aside, the subject also is one of the oldest people to survive COVID. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep As time goes by, only more information and notoriety will increase. Being the world's oldest verified living person should justify her own article. --Benjamin.P.L (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oldest person in the world, so should have an article by right, as every previous holder of the record has had a Wikipedia profile, so why should María be any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.102.139 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WRONG! Not only is there no such precedent for "oldest person" having an article by right, 3 recent oldest people do NOT have articles (as well as many earlier such persons). DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 06:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding this argument, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Peaceray (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not actually the point. The IP (and others) have argued that being the oldest should automatically qualify someone for an article, which is incorrect as being the oldest does NOT automatically pass WP:N. For a stand-alone article to be justified for someone who is the oldest person there needs to be sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and sufficient content in the article to pass WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Most of this is included in WP:LONGEVITY (which some contributors here may not have read). DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, a before search shows a lot of sources so the subject passes WP:GNG. One such source is . Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, Multiple other "oldest living persons" have their own articles, this is a long established form of notability. --Zerbey (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, I compare it to being a political figure. You aren't always in office, but the fact that you were in office at one point makes you notable. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:EC4B:413:D10F:95C6 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Standard Wikipedia policy appears to be that the world's oldest living person is intrinsically notable.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I honestly fail to see how being the world's oldest person can be considered non-notable. • Huferpad talk 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being the world’s oldest person is a clear claim to notability. Velo  ciraptor  888  12:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional merge to List of the oldest living people: As a guideline rule of thumb, oldest-living people explicitly fail WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES:
 * The article currently has nothing to say about Branyas Morera except for her being the oldest person in the world: there's nothing about her career, her personal life, etc.. Unless more sources can be found to say anything more substantial that merits an article in its own right rather than a few sentences in that list (though I suspect such sources exist), merge per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES. _ MB190417  _ (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I agree with @DerbyCountyinNZ per WP:PERMASTUB (effectively, my comment above is to merge if WP:PERMASTUB is met). But, as per @Onegreatjoke, we should probably hold off such assessment for now as we can expect more coverage over the coming days.
 * Additionally, I find it bizarre how many editors in this discussion have assumed notability is inherent/precedented here, when WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES is very clear that it is not. _ MB190417  _ (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * “This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones,” - WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES. It is important to read what you cite thoroughly. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant 'guideline' in the informal sense of 'rule of thumb'. The 'normally' of course precludes any definitive recommendation anyway, and Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent.  But my point in citing WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES was to show the precedent/assumed notability that other editors cite simply doesn't exist, and a merge is common for such articles if they are short.  I didn't appreciate the suggestion that I don't read thoroughly. _  MB190417  _ (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (change of recommendation). The article now exceeds the few sentences it did at the time of the AfD nomination, and includes significant coverage in the popular press of Branyas Morera's life (some of which predates today).  In time the article may well be nominated again for deletion as WP:RECENTISM, but for now, notability and significant coverage are both established.  I have struck through my original recommendation, but kept the note of WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, which I stand by. _  MB190417  _ (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (change of recommendation). The article now exceeds the few sentences it did at the time of the AfD nomination, and includes significant coverage in the popular press of Branyas Morera's life (some of which predates today).  In time the article may well be nominated again for deletion as WP:RECENTISM, but for now, notability and significant coverage are both established.  I have struck through my original recommendation, but kept the note of WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, which I stand by. _  MB190417  _ (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Being the oldest living person is sufficient for notability. I don't think these are valid grounds for removal. Many people listed in Oldest people have articles of their own. RisingTzar (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and not so many in List of the oldest living people. _ MB190417  _ (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per AuthorAuthor and others. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Being the oldest living person clearly makes them notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * There's a parallel with a problem in set theory, which runs: 'in the set of uninteresting whole numbers, one number will be the smallest. It therefore becomes interesting as it is the smallest uninteresting number.'


 * Comment: I saw that the previous record holder died, I went to the page of the next one, and saw that it was afd. This is something people want to know... I would assume that this is one of the fundamental purposes of an encyclopedia. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:EC4B:413:D10F:95C6 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if she were to die today it would not alter the fact that she was once the oldest living human being, which is a good enough reason to establish notability IMO. Keivan.f  Talk 18:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Has the required notability as she became the oldest living person yesterday. Ardije (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Just being the oldest living person means she now meets WP:BASIC. Even WP:SINGLEEVENT states that If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Perhaps it is time to drop the stick & realize the snow ball clause applies to any notion of deletion. Peaceray (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Oldest person alive merits their own wiki article. --38.106.246.197 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is plenty of coverage of her and her longevity to warrant her own article. Any given "world's oldest person" gets coverage and attention for such a circumstance from reputable sources, regardless of if they are independently notable; this is especially true when the world's previous verified oldest person dies. The exceptional qualities from a longevity standpoint of a person who becomes the world's oldest living individual is guaranteed to be given attention, speculation, and interest from many vantages. Therefore, for any given person who has been verified as the world's oldest living person at any given time, I do not see any reason to delete such pages unless if interest and coverage wanes and the "world's oldest living person" title loses its curiosity to become irrelevant. And such a possibility is not relevant to the circumstances of María Branyas Morena, whose article I cannot justify nor conceive as something to be deleted from Wikipedia. Mungo Kitsch   (talk)  22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and change the common outcomes to exclude world's oldest person -- oldest person in a country, oldest person to do X, etc. are likely redirect candidates, but as far as I can remember, everyone who was once the world's oldest person got obits in major news outlets. The news outlets considered the person notable enough and they provide enough verified information to write an article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2023 (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.