Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Rose Mueller


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Marie-Rose Mueller

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about someone who was once one of the top 50 living people in the world. So what? Most people who were once one of the top 50 living people at some point do not have an article here, and there's no reason to suggest why this case is any different. If she was a record-breaker for her country or was one of the top 10 living people in the world, then it might be different, but as far as I'm concerned there's a little bit of news coverage (WP:NOT) and a load of original research here - there may even be a conflict of interest as the person who uploaded the photograph took it of the article's subject themselves, and so much of the content may be unverifiable, leaving us with a permastub. Not even the holder of the title of the oldest living person in Connecticut at any point. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources of the article are, as HisSpaceResearch said, unverifiable. That said, I don't believe that there should be much use of the article either. Besides, there is no news coverage on it either. No news coverage means no interest. No interest means no use of it. -- Zachary crimsonwolf  15:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a search on Google, and found three separate US newspaper articles about her death. So clearly there was news coverage.--Toddy1 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - 62 Google hits minus "wikipedia", nothing on Google News. Many of the Google hits are blogs and forums. Wikipedia is not a directory of supercentenarians or anything else.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Apparently Wikipedia is a directory of flight destinations from Manchester UK airport:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destinations_served_by_Manchester_Airport_Terminal_3

This article is at least interesting due to the history involved: born in that part of Alsace retained by France after the annexation of most of it by Germany after the Franco-Prussian war. This article alone led to a greater understanding of the past; most had not even realized that France retained the Territoire de Belfort. In this day and age when people watch too much TV and play too many video games, shouldn't it be OK for a minority of young people to actually learn something academic? Ryoung122 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Centenarians are default notable; they are honoured in the UK by a telegram from the monarch for example. The 100th anniversary is frequently reported in local news. Providing there is an independent source then the article should stay. LessHeard vanU 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In fact, she's a supercentenarian (110+), but you have it totally wrong if you think that centenarians are by default notable enough for Wikipedia. That would merit many tens of thousands of permastubs many of which would lack multiple reliable non-trivial published sources and fail WP:NOT and WP:NOT.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete very few supercens are truly notable. RMHED 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being over the age of 110 does not make someone inherently notable. Impressive as this woman's longevity may be, she was not even the oldest woman in her state, let alone the country; there is nothing particularly notable about her to anyone other than her friends and family. Terraxos 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable for not taking many pills and being infairly good health. Being age 111 in its own right entitles one to an article. And she was a local celebrity even with her own holiday&#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#39;&#39;]] 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are poor arguments for real notability.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, there are some 80,000 centenarians in the USA but perhaps only 80 persons aged 110+, and maybe 40 aged 111+, at any one time. So, this age grouping is much rarer than the average college football player (who is often included even if scoring only one career touchdown, as is the case with Keeley Dorsey). So, a question must be asked: where do we draw the line for 'notability' when it comes to supercentenarians? There are over 200 articles created and the minimum standard is age 110. Thus the issue may be related to 'media coverage'. How much coverage is sufficient? A final note, 'notable' or not, the woman's article was originally created by a non-relative who read about her in the paper, not a relative. Ryoung122 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC) It would be great to include a properly-sourced single paragraph on Mueller in a list of extremely long-lived American people, but without massive new evidence of notability this standalone article looks like a clear delete. If the article was plausibly referenced I'd suggest a merger to a list, but I don't see anything here worth keeping unless new sources are available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The COI charge is unfair. The first photo uploaded was from the newspaper, which was deleted as being a 'copyright' issue. It thus made sense that, since Wikipedians are deleting newspaper/commercial photos, the only photos available will thus be amateur. This is true even with the world's oldest woman, Edna Parker. Note even the city of Atlanta has several amateur photos.
 * Delete. I started reading the article thinking that it would be a clear keep, but had to abandon that idea as I read though it. There are no inline citations, so it's hard to tell which of the facts asserted are sourced where, but of the three links provided, one is just an entry in a list, one is a dead link which doesn't show up in the internet archive, and the remaining link is to 247-word news report which offers far fewer facts than are in the article, supporting the suggestion that the article contains a lot of original research. Even if the  missing article was was substantial, she still falls far short of WP:BIO.
 * bhg, I included a reference to a long article in the Stratford Courier, (or maybe it was Journal, it's been awhile), when I first wrote the article. Unless it's been removed, or I pasted it in wrong, it should still be in their and should be enough for the articles reference, as the article only repeats, tit for tat, everything mentioned in the article, except perhaps reworded, very thinly in fact in several places. As for notability, an American is, by statistal probability, 10 times more likely to become a Congressman or Governor than live to be 111, that is notable, though not notable enough, on it's on. There's more though, and I implore you to change your opinion, as if this supercentenarian isn't notable then none of them are. Allow me to continue. Her father was a carriage maker, a carriage maker, who was one of the first people to switch to manufacturing automobiles and as a result her family was one of the first in France to drive a car. They lived in small part of the Alsace region of France still controlled by France and surrounded on three sides by Germany. They left France to flee uncoming agressions from Germany at the beginnings of the events which eventually led to WWI. There's a historical notability for you there, that also adds interest. Then add to it that up to her death at 111, she could still speak three langauges, (that's stunningly sharp for a supercentenarian), and was in good, stable health up to her sudden death, (which happens among supercentenarians sometimes), and you add more to her notability as a supercentenarian and add more interest. Lastly, hers is a good 'example article', an article that gives a good, well written example of a more interesting supercentenarian. It should stand so that it can serve as an example of a supercentenarian, (there are not many as detailed as it, aside from World's Oldest Lived people). I'm not proposing to write four hundred 10 page long articles on every supercentenarian that ever lived, but asking to let one, a page and a half long including references etc., stand. It's not long, and I do believe that Mueller's notability and interestingness, (which is not even a word), for lack of a better word, crosses the threshold to be allowed a simple, short article. On a last note, it could stand as a human interest article, and is, in my opinion a solid addition to Wikipedia's biography project. I respectfully ask you to reconsider carefully, and if that's still not enough, then why not submit, to me, a list of problems that you think make it delete worthy, from formating, to content, to referencing, and I will fix them to the best of my ability, simple as that. If Wikipedia has space for articles on 500 Pokemon cards because people are interested in them, then it has space for a few articles on supercentenarians because there are people interested in them, and Gerontology is an actual field and a growing hobby that does deserve representation.--Robert Waalk 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I once saw a Pokemon card, as a featured article. That's Wikipedia. It's about big encyclopedic things and small "useless" facts. I know servers cost money, but I see Wikipedia as an infinite pool of information, so deleting articles should be rare. This article could be shortened, but if there are 1 or 2 mentions in the media, I don't see the point of deleting it. It's quite an interesting life story anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.94.3 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the original articles html has been moved. Otherwise absolutely everything would match, because I pretty much just prettied up and copied that article as best as could, and added a little orginal bit her and there, based on what the article said. I will try and relocate the article to substantiate this too you. AS for the earlier claim about conflict of interest, posted by the first person seeking deletion, I have no conflict here, I have never met her, and am of no relationship. The other picture I had was unusuable because of the annoying copyright restrictions for photographs, and had to be pulled, that was the only other one available, and someone graciously uploaded it. --Robert Waalk 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word on the content of the original article. But even if we count that missing article as a source, we are still left with only three brief articles in local newspapers, which falls well short of the substantial coverage required by WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Keep
 * WP:INTERESTING is not a good argument for inclusion. In fact, if it weren't for deletionism, Wikipedia would be so full of crap that people would not be able to use it in the same way.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Who is it hurting if we leave it up? No One. So you people arguing that it’s unverifiable, are you saying that every piece of information on Wikipedia is verifiable, because if it wasn’t it has already been deleted? It would be one thing if she was like 78 and died, because then the world wouldn’t really care, as it happens every day, but she was 111, and one of a very small group of people.--Tyler Gothier 18:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a good argument for inclusion. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I care what you think, or what Wikipedia guidelines say I should avoid? No, I don't. Also, stop commenting on peoples opinions, no one really cares what you have to say, and as you say on your page, there are two sides to every story.--Tyler Gothier 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think not, and unknown for the second 1. However, with that response, it seems apparent you don't care, else you wouldn't be replying. Anyways, no one has to follow the "stop commenting on people's opinions," which leads to the pointlessness of requesting it. Also, asking "do I care what you think," is an example of "appeal to unqualified authority." The number 1 person to ask questions about yourself isn't User:HisSpaceResearch, it should, in fact, be you. Neal 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Yes, your information is false. The Stratford Journal or Carrier or whatever is was, wrote a long article on her, I posted it as a reference when I wrote the article. There are about to be obituaries in Connecticuts two largest newspapers which shows people do care, and Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has declared her birthday 'Muzzy Mueller Day' for the past four years. She was something of a local figure in Connecticuts Capitol. Go to Google and you can find no less than four articles on her. There is no issue with the articles quality. AS for the most of the Supercentenarians not having articles, well this article was the start of a project to give many of the more notable ones, who were lacking articles, short articles. Her life is interesting from the historical context, and the fact that only one in some 50 million people make it to be her age. By statistical probability, a person born in America has a far greater chance of becoming a Congressman, or Governor, far greater. So, by simple rarity of her longevity she is notable. Again, you are misguided. People do care, so your biggest argument is gone. Multiple newspaper articles, including ones for everyone of her birthdays dating back four years ago, and multiple obituaries. She even had her birthday declared "Muzzy Mueller Day" by the Governor of Connecticut. I'm sorry to repeat myself but this an outrageous delete and I feel I have to drive the point in. Marie Mueller was notable from her local status, and from the extreme statistical rarity. Not to mention she falls under the interest category, as her good health and the historic context of her life are interesting. As for the comment, "She wasn't even the oldest People in Connecticut, delete", well, the oldest person in Connecticut happens to be one 12 oldest people alive right now, so it's hard to fault her for that. Look up up Elizabeth Stefan to see more on it. She is, I believe the oldest living immigrant, and the oldest living Hungarian, (by birth).--216.79.211.7 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, I have voted before but if its the verifibility that is the issue, we can simply remove the unverifible stuff and keep the verifible stuff, which is pretty much all the article. If its the notability factor, well doesn't Wikipedia have a policy that says that local notables should be included. The governor himself came to her house and declared her 111th a holiday. And also read my previous Keep for other reasons for notability. This is actually a very stupid discussion for I can counter anything that is a Delete. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#39;&#39;]] 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep. As per users "Ryoung" and also "Kitia". Extremely sexy 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe this is notable and worthy of a "keep" vote. (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Weak keep, for the time being. As mentioned above, old age is not a reason for inclusion per se, but the media coverage may contain things not yet worked into the Wikipedia article. &lt;K  F&gt;  22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, supercentenarians are rare - that is notable in itself. The idea of deleting this article is as absurd as it is pedantic and brings out the worst in Wikipedia. Dovea 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 *  KEEP There are perhaps 100 or so people alive right now who can be verifiably said to be over 110 years old, and only around 1100 people ever known to have reached such ages. These people are the outer edge of Human longevity, and are directly important and relevant to the life and longevity of our species, and every one of us. If that doesn't count for something, then perhaps the wikipedia policy on "notability" needs to be broadened just a little bit so that articles like this can remain, for the people who find them facinating and important, rather than just being deleted one by one by people who are applying policy and guidelines in a somewhat robotic fashion. There is always room for flexibilty and understanding in any system of rules and policies. Is it too much to ask to have some here? Cjeales 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked by myself as a sock/meatpuppet of Duja ► 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the strikethrough placed on the comments of Cjeales by Duja. Even if the former is a puppet of Ryoung122, there has only been one comment by Ryoung122, which made a different point.--Toddy1 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I unblocked Cjeales, as he's probably just a meatpuppet; however, please see WP:CANVASS. If it wasn't crystal clear so far, it is in process in this AfD. has 3 edits on Wikipedia outside Young-related AfDs and ANIs. Duja ► 08:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert Young blocked indefinitely? Please explain a bit more fully. Yes, he used sockpuppets, but is that grounds for an indefinite block? (Sorry if this is a bit off topic from this AfD but I feel I may as well ask here).--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive324 and the preceding discussions at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive324. It is off-topic for AfD, so please discuss it elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can people become notable just by living to a great age? Yes. Did Marie-Rose-Mueller do so? No. Delete. Sam Blacketer 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  STRONG KEEP Her life story is a data point about somebody who lived to a great age, with enough of these life stories people may be able to start reasoning why she lived so long. Keep up these biographies for a couple of years and the list of Supercentenarians will become statistically meaningful, and the possible subject of useful research. What better data do we have on Supercentenarians? Mike Young 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions by many.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistician 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Wikipedia is a compact source for a lot of different themes and only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
 * Reply: I don't think so, n/a. Your 2nd question of your 1st sentence doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to answer it. And an admin's opinion is slightly different than what an admin does. And your last sentence is irrelevant in terms of your vote according to Wikipedia's policies. Neal 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

Comment We seem to be going off at very interesting debates, so I thought I should voice some opinions. Robert Young is now banned, so I will speak on his behalf (and Bart Versieck is under a 48 hour shun, so I'm the only 1 left). I'm from world's oldest people group, so I really shouldn't vote. She doesn't pass WP:BIO, least, not that I know off. Robert Young once said he felt someone that is 112.5 is notable for a Wikipedia article (that's where he drew the line). And this woman is only 111. So when I looked at this article, I could see how it was started: more than a sentence. Matter fact, several paragraphs.

Anyways, she's the 2nd oldest person in the state of Connecticut. There's 50 U.S. states. If every 1st and 2nd oldest person in U.S. state had their own article, that's 100 articles. But then, why not go back to 2005 and 2003, there's another quadruple amount for articles.

It should be noted that Robert's view of supercentenarian articles for keep increases exponentially by age of 1 year. In other words, less than 50% of 113 year-olds reach 114. Less than 50% of 112 year-olds reach 113. In other words, there are more 110 year olds ever than 111-122 year olds ever. So Robert drew the line at 112.5 for modern-day, even though WP:BIO did not say 1 had to be 112.5 in order to have their own article. It seems that Robert did not create this article, but he'll still be inclined not to give it the disadvantage of the doubt by voting for deletion.

By reading some of the above posts that 111 is really notable, I would be curious to know where they draw the line, and I'm guessing 110. That would mean some 1,000 biographies. Anyways, I'm more strongly towards rank (rank at death). The 2nd oldest person in a U.S. state would mean the 2nd oldest person of any sizeable state/province. Oh, yea, and I probably lied about speaking on Robert's behalf. I'm, in reality, speaking on my own. :P. Neal 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC).


 * keep. There is an entire article on Supercentenarians, and an entire subculture that celebrates and documents supercentenarians. Kingturtle 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Greswik 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (again) if she's so boring, why have we written so much in this article Mike Young 21:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Heh, it's not about whether she's boring or not. Why have people written so much in her article? To make her notable enough to avoid deletion. Neal 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I really think this one is heading for a big no consensus. The people arguing for a keep are sometimes using weak arguments for inclusion, although there are more keep voters than delete voters.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the amount of 'keep' votes and 'delete' votes matter. This isn't a popularity contest. I think it's more about adding up the logical reasonings on both sides and weighing that in. For example, a lot of the keep are the same reasons "she's 111, that's really notable!" But if someone can find how she matches a WP:BIO, etc., then that would be something else. Neal 03:05, 16 November 2007 (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.