Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss


 * 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. 

Nomination was withdrawn, resulting with a keep. --Michael Greiner 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Knauss

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another article on very old person, most of which is unsupported by the refs supplied. A Google search threw up lots of hits on webforums etc, but the closest I found to a reliable source was this largely speculative article in the Journal of Financial Planning, which mostly refers to the times she lived in and says very little about Knauss. Unless some substantive coverage in reliable sources can be found, I suggest either deletion or merger to List of American supercentenarians. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Strong keep Seems like the 2nd oldest verified woman in the history of the human race is going for deletion over need of more citations and references. Neal (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Nomination withdrawn to allow for article improvement now that refs have been found which, if verified, might establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Hmm, thank you! Neal (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. One of the women to have the oldest person in the world title, why doesn't this make her notable?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading WP:BIO. There appears to be little to say about her which can be reliably sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply She is included in the relevant lists, and her position there is not in dispute. However per WP:BIO, references to substantial coverage are required for a stanbdalone article. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like this should be kept, but I'm not entirely certain that the coverage merits it yet. Will wait to see if anyone can produce some good reliable sources before I have an opinion. So I guess, maybe this is a "provisional keep." Cheers, CP 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Now changing to a keep, per strength of references. Cheers, CP 04:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - utmost respect for really old people, who must have been very careful, but this does not qualify someone as notable. Avruch Talk 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Switching to keep per enormous number of references just provided... Avruch Talk 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided in my nomination a direct link to the google search which I used in good faith, and on which I checked the first few pages. Well done finding more references, which is precisely what I asked to be done, but there is no need to be rude just because you found refs which I missed. However, I note that the references are less impressive than the list of 7 might suggest: Morning Call and BBC story are alleged copies of news articles (possibly copyvios), the CNN story is an alleged copy of a news article in a mailing list archive, the Guardian ref is a 46-word snippet, the Washington Post story is almost identical to the BBC, suggesting that both are based on the same AP stories (which also the source of the CNN story, though the Philadelphia Inquirer article does appear substantive (1681 words according to Highbeam). If someone can actually dig out the full text of the articles, I think that notability may be established by PA+Inquirer, but I note that your list so far doesn't include the full text of any substantive article on its original website. At this point, I will withdraw the nomination to give interested editors a chance to improve the article, but I hope that any further discussion can take place without further personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Comment Hey, thank you, Richard Norton! Neal (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep and reference better I don't want to seem rude but, but these look like BrownHairedGirl Bad Faith Nominations. A simple Google search found many references, why didn't the nominator find them? It appears that she was angry and is retaliating by nominating all the articles for deletion without preforming the minimal due diligence. Do you honestly not how to do a Google search, or are you presenting selective research to bolster your point?       --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Richard Arthur, if you don't want to appear rude, then stop alleging bad faith and using boldface type to make unfounded accusations of selective research. This one of several similar allegations which you have in the last few hours, and it's getting rather tedious. As I have stated umpteen times, my preference with most of the many articles on non-notable oldies would have been to merge them, and it was only when the mergers were reverted while notability was still not established that I brought them to AfD to allow for a consensus decision on their fate in those cases where I did not find references (I did find refs for ecample for Virginia Muise, and added them to the article). As you will see if you look at the many other nominations, most of them have not so far been improve to meet notability thresholds.
 * I don't think the Washington Post plagiarizes from AP releases, if it did, it would be bigger news than this story. All the references are similar, as I hope they should be, because they are all interviewing the same person, her granddaughter. I am never rude, no more than a teacher giving someone a bad grade, but I won't praise, or keep silent when someone nominates without performing, minimally, a thorough Google search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold that front page: here is nothing new in a newspaper using a wire service; not all of them name the wire at the top of the article (it's sometimes at the bottom), and it may not survive in reproductions. Your reply confirms that you still haven't read my nomination, and the fact that you think you are like a teacher scolding an errant child makes my point about your lack of manners better than I could. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you transmogrified "teacher giving someone a bad grade" into "teacher scolding an errant child", but they are not synonyms.
 * Plagiarism What evidence do you have the the Washington Post used the Associated Press article without attribution? It is a strong statement to make. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Richard, calm down and read what I actually wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better - improve the references. --User: (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Second oldest person proven EVER is certainly notable, as well as those refs that back it up. Probably BHG bad-faith again. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep jaknouse (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep now that nom is withdrawn. --Storkk (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)