Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onezima "Oni" Ponder


 * 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 The nomination was based on notability. Notability has been asserted but I haven't seen any suggestion that you acquire notability simply by being old. Outwith that, the standard measurement is the existence of multiple non-trivial reliable references. There are absence and closing against policy, not headcount, confirms that notability hasn't been demonstrated. Please feel free to ask on my talk if you can find some more sources. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Onezima "Oni" Ponder
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject does not meet primary notability guidelines that require coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Only source currently available is one news article that would not allow for one to write a substantial, neutral biography on this individual. Someone has to be the oldest in each state, and Ponder happens to be it; beyond that, there's no evidence of notability. Cheers, CP 15:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. If being just a member of a football team is notable (see Keeley Dorsey, then it's not too much to expect that being the oldest person in the state (out of 17 million) isn't. Ok, although I doubt she is actually the oldest in the state, and this may have been a premature article creation, this woman appears to be in good shape and her age is validatable (the census matches have already been located) even though not yet officially accepted. Also, simply because there is just one article presently attached doesn't mean there are others...in fact there are several others, some for her 109th birthday, some in between. Ryoung122  20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction: it seems that the Keeley Dorsey article was deleted while I was gone. Ryoung122 05:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

delete for now I think it is premature to create an article. We cant assume she is in good shape and will live long enough to gain notability. I think WP:CBALL applies here. --Npnunda (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. If that is the case, and the decision is to delete, it should be noted that future recreation might be different if, say, she is still living some 3 years from now. Ryoung122  06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. As per user Ryoung122, who actually means "doesn't mean there aren't others", and so I will add them in the article very soon indeed. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Bart please clarify. By "doesn't mean there aren't others" are you saying there are other non notable articles on Wikipedia and so even though Oni Ponder isn't notable we should keep the article. That's what it seems to sound like to me. Also not really WP policy WP:NOTE --Npnunda (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. If you read my comment, than Bart's, it is clear that I was saying that there are other citations (which I added to the talk page) and that Bart planned to add them to the article. No one said anything about other articles. Ryoung122 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a compromise? Oh! Your right Robert I did misread that comment. Sorry about that Bart. What if we did this. Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States for now. Then we could work on the article and expand it. Then, in a few years, give Onezima her own article. This is what we did with Catherine Dahlheimer Hagel. I would be curious to see what Canadian Paul thought of this idea. --Npnunda (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what going to happen if this article gets "deleted" anyhow, since people are creating redirects for articles like Fernand Goux and Aniţica Butariu. I am seeking a formal community consensus that says that this article is not to return unless more sources become available that can expand this into a full, neutral biography that is in full compliance with Wikipedia policies. Someone can add this material to the list if they want, but this is an unlikely redirect term. Cheers, CP 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think the creation of redirects really has much to do with this article. I note that Fernand Goux is "one of 12" remaining WWI veterans. In addition, being a unique historical figure isn't something that will repeat. Anitica Butariu is held out as a national recordholder, but issues remain due to the language barrier and sourcing (many of the original articles appeared on the web in 1997, and early links are unlikely to be preserved).

In this case, Onezima Ponder is just one of 1,000+ persons who have reached the age of 110, so her case is on a scale order much less than Goux or Butariu. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if the article is deleted. However, we have seen that in some cases, people are willing to put forth the effort to write a decent biography. I wanted to give the article creator a chance first to do that before we decide that it is not worth keeping.

Also, I suggest a re-do of the "list of living supercentenarians." If we list, for example, everyone verified to be 110+ (the U.S. has over 570 cases) then cases like this one will be put into perspective. A focus on a more scientific or demographic approach, rather than "those who love publicity get articles, those that don't get deleted" is needed. Ryoung122 02:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per well-written nom. If kept, move to Onezima Ponder as nicknames are not customarily included in article titles. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nomination is incorrect on more than one count. First, there are multiple sources for this case. For example,

http://www.ocala.com/article/20070904/NEWS/209040316/1001/NEWS01

http://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/articles/2007/11/17/villages/villages01.txt

Second, these articles aren't written by the person or family member, so the "neutral" charge is also fallacious.

Third, saying "someone has to be the oldest in Florida" is like saying "someone has to win the U.S. Open". There will always be people that become famous due to doing something that has to happen (such as winning the batting title in major league baseball...someone has to finish first). Of course, that still may not satisfy some people as to "notability," because ultimately "notability" is subjective, not objective. Currently, Wikipedia favors younger persons, sports figures, fictional TV and movie characters, video game characters, and current events. I don't see anything wrong with keeping this article, given that this woman is already rather unique--one out of 18 million hardly constitutes "ordinary." Ryoung122 09:12, 12 September 2008 (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.