Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Thérèse Bardet


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has resulted within this discussion. North America1000 14:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Marie-Thérèse Bardet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage following a brief burst of interest in her extreme age and subsequent death. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian  Paul  13:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Being oldest person in Europe and also the 7th oldest person in the world out of 7 billion is good enough and record holders of the oldest person in Europe usually have an article. Certainly passes WP:G, WP:BIO and other guidelines.
 * The problem of this page is being short, but not a reason to delete this page. Also, I'd expanded this article.
 * There is also a method of marge to List of French supercentenarians (Just as Articles for deletion/Marie-Simone Capony).Inception2010 (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and/or Redirect to List of French supercentenarians per WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines for biographies at the WP:WOP Wikiproject. There is nothing of interest here to justify a standalone article (I don't see any reason to merge into a mini-bio either). The only stuff about her that isn't covered in a list is that she was born to a single mother and had kids and grandkids. Based on the sources, I would argue she also fails WP:GNG. The GRG link doesn't mention her so that leaves some obituaries and a brief local news story that only repeat the bare basics (born, lived, died, kids, oldest). Easily summarised on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I noticed Inception2010 above has tried expanding the article and I see no improvements to change my mind. Adding more obituaries that repeat the same basic information (born, lived, kids, died) means this article will never expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A strong claim of notability, with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to back it up, in an article providing significant coverage of the subject.--203.148.122.23 (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC) — 203.148.122.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * An SPA, appearing out of nowhere.  E Eng  10:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Before you frantically start accusing new accounts of SPA'ing, I'd rather you'd provide evidence for that. This is nothing more than namecalling. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing frantic, just calmly stating the obvious.  E Eng  20:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Routine obits.  E Eng  10:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Utterly non-routine obituaries from reliable and verifiable sources that back a strong claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Routine obituaries. Nothing particularly stands out here, and the coverage doesn't pass the bar of GNG. ~ Rob 13 Talk 09:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to List of French supercentenarians. With Mrs Bardet having been the oldest living person in Europe for some time, I do not quite see how some people think they can hold up the argument that she was "not notable". However, I do feel that the article as it is right now is not enough to grant and/or guarantee a stand-alone article. Therefore, why not take a pro-active stance in this regard and improve the article until it satisfies you as it is? Wikipedia would actually benefit and improve from that. If not, I feel that, until more information from reliable sources is used, perhaps a redirect could also seem suitable. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 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.