Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Fitzgerald (supercentenarian)


 * 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. Redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  20:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Fitzgerald (supercentenarian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Clear failure of WP:GNG as the sources do not demonstrate notability. A very brief obituary and an article that covers anyone in Canada over the age of 80 does not make someone notable. Per WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines at WP:WOP she belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing routine, reliable sources with significant coverage. There is no "age of 80" rule in Canada media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply see the second source. It states that it features an article every Tuesday about someone over 80. Hardly significant coverage. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has a column twice a week on economics, so maybe we should delete all 1,250 references to his columns. He must be twice as insignificant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is, perhaps, the stupidest argument I've ever seen at AfD. It should have an ATA section all its own.  E Eng  14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, being the author of content being used as references is not equivalent to the matter of whether a person is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to qualify for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. 209.53.181.200 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin the IP address who restored this article from a redirect was blocked for ban evasion. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note User:CommanderLinx has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia over his role in these nominations and for forcing redirects without discussion. The delete vote is from a WP:SPA that is User:CommanderLinx, the IP started editing the day User:CommanderLinx was blocked. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you stop with this nonsense please? I am not indefinitely blocked, nor did I edit under the above IP address. Stop spreading false information please. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then can I suggest you remove the indef blocked template from your user page, which was placed there by an IP back in January? It's obviously causing some confusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow that makes sense. Can't believe I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing that out to me. CommanderLinx (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. While there used to be a consensus that reaching the age of 100+ was grounds for an article in and of itself, WP:BIO1E has considerably weakened that — and with just two references here, the volume of reliable source coverage is not significant enough to claim that she passes WP:GNG. A weekly column about people in her age bracket, in her own local newspaper, does not make her special. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect Born, married, died, WP:NOPAGE. The sentimental bit in the lead re "Her life spanned three centuries" is par-for-the-course filler.  E Eng  14:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to List of Canadian supercentenarians. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to a relevant target. Obviously a case of WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Also doesn't pass WP:GNG given the "over 80" weekly column on this subject. ~ RobTalk 18:51, 16 June 2016 (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.