Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melva Radcliffe


 * 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. As points out, the strong trend lately has been that even being "(country)'s oldest person" doesn't intrinsically convey notability. Absent any other claims of notability, she does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I would have created a redirect, but no specific destination was suggested. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Melva Radcliffe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, see WP:1E and WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Credible claim of notability based on age -- as one of almost 100 people included in Category:American supercentenarians -- and status as state's oldest resident, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep She is notable due to being a super centenarian being born, and to have died in New Jersey. Historically, it's rare for New Jersey. Also, this achievement is done by only 1 in 80 million people. There are several scientific groups and clubs dedicated to following and studying this noteworthy accomplishment. jjrj24 (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Long-standing precedent has been that simply being old does not satisfy notability guidelines, nor does being the oldest person in a city/state/country (the most recent examples being Mary Byrne, Susannah Mushatt Jones, and Totaro Murakami). As there is no specific policy concerning notability based on age, notability in this case is determined by the amount of sources, and nothing about the sourcing suggests meeting the level of coverage required by WP:N. There's nothing here except a fact (which can be stated on one of the many supercentenarian lists on Wikipedia) and a lot of trivial, unencyclopedic information. Canadian   Paul  19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Long-standing precedent is actually that indentifiably discreet search terms of topics which Wikipedia has coverage of are redirected to the list articles where such coverage exists, even if such were John Smith (supercentenarian); this would make the articles restorable with one revert edit if they were actually to take a primary rather than secondary position, and should have been the result of the other recent AfDs; agreed that they currently do not meet the threshold guidelines for stand-alone biographies. Dru of Id (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2013 (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.