Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Gibson


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Susie Gibson

 * – ( 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, obituaries and one or two local news reports, none of which establish notability. 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 here can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian  Paul  20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Wikipedia's long, contentious history of editing surrounding World’s Oldest People topics continues, as this discussion is being canvassed off-wiki by community banned user Ryoung122. The link is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so you have to delete the space after the first period for the link to work. I also have a screen shot saved if needed: z3 invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=14494&st=345 Canadian   Paul  17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * C.P., I've taken the liberty of adjusting your psuedo-link so that people can copy-paste it as I think you intended. I'm thrilled to say I get my very own starring role as villain in RY's rant!  E Eng  20:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I'm not sure what I intended, so I'll take your adjustment as an improvement. Thanks! Canadian   Paul  19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Canadian Paul, how exactly is the link "canvassing"? Canvassing, if I recall correctly, is urging people to go to an AfD and vote in a certain way. Please note that in the message you are referring to, that is not done. Moreover, I do not see any SPA votes having come in after that post (30 November) had been made. In other words, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve other than trying to manipulate the closing admin by wrongly accusing someone of canvassing. Fiskje88 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly obviously canvassing (of which Young has a long history) and ineffective canvassing is still canvassing.  E Eng  00:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then you must have a VERY different view on matters, because I see absolutely none of it. Goodnight. Fiskje88 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my view that counts, but that of WP:CANVASS, which lists among inappropriate behaviors:
 * Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
 * Contacting users off-wiki... to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
 * Both are present here.  E Eng  00:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly fail to see how "both are present here;" I see no persuasion at all to join in any discussion, nor do I see this comment aimed at any Wikipedia-users at all. Therefore, I do not see any reason at all to change my opinion regarding this supposed "canvassing" attempt. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there is no need to delete this article. Being second oldest person in America and also the third oldest person in the world out of 6.5 billion (at 2006, the year of the death of Susie Gibson) is good enough and record holders of the third oldest person in the world usually have an article. Also this article is well sourced (see article).
 * For the above reasons, Certainly passes WP:G, WP:BIO and not meet WP:ROUTINE.
 * There is also a method of marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States (Just as Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing, Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris).
 * I think this page is more important and more notable than Ella Schuler's page. Susie Gibson was the world's third oldest person. However, Ella Schuler was only the 7th oldest. Ella Schuler's page is should be deleted than this article.Inception2010 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about Ella Schuler here. If you think her article should be deleted then feel free to nominate it for deletion. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing in the above keep addresses the sourcing which is what determines notability as per the quoted guidelines. You've argued what should be notable, not what is according to our guidelines. When you look at the sourcing, we have a single obituary and a book that we can't review (but probably has her in a table somewhere). That's not even close to enough. ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The book can be read through Google books preview and it doesn't help with notability at all. I looked quickly and it appears she gets a total of 4 (out of 322) pages that simply tell us how her age was validated. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The above vote summed this up nicely. Despite Inception2010 saying so, this article is not "well sourced" at all and would fail the guidelines to biographies at the WP:WOP Wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update following addition of sources. Nothing to change my vote. A second ref to a book that covers her in 4 pages, another we can't read (but appears she was interviewed for) and an article that tells us three things (she's 115, read the Bible and her mother died at 104). CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong 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.
 * Comment Really? Susie Gibson isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--124.108.219.196 (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — 124.108.219.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A lack of sourcing isn't a reason to delete a page? Really? ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the WP guidelines mentioned above. Please note that the ones who have voted 'delete' in this AfD are as much biased as the people they tag as 'SPAs', as these "delete" voters have continuously been appearing in AfD in this topic for the past year and a half; in other words, the two 'delete' votes have not come from any random third party. Now, I understand that not every supercentenarian who has lived should have his/her own Wikipedia article - in fact, I am also in favour of trimming the Longevity project here down to a sizeable amount of articles - but I do not think it is necessary to delete Mrs Gibson's article; a quick Google search reveals that Mrs Gibson still appears in newspaper articles as recently as 2015, has appeared in foreign newspapers as well, and is still commonly referred to in supercentenarian research. Therefore, I see no point in deleting her article. Fiskje88 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do feel free to present examples of substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'll happily swap my opinion if you can find what I could not. One-line mentions, of course, do not assist in establishing notability. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Same as above, provide the sources (in the article, not in this AFD discussion) that would make it so she satisfies the notability guidelines and I'll change my vote. Because as it stands, this article doesn't even satisfy the WP:WOP Wikiproject guidelines to biographies let alone GNG. I'm also interested to see what you found because all I could find were unreliable sources (forum posts and Wiki mirrors), duplicate obituaries and table listings which doesn't help. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll do so later this weekend. :) Thank you for trying to think along! Fiskje88 (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: sources added. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not seeing anything significant to change my vote. One book we can't read. I think she was interviewed for it but not sure how extensive it was. Another ref is from that Supercentenarians book I commented on earlier (four pages telling us how her age was validated). The last article doesn't tell us much (other than she is 115, read the Bible and her mother lived to 104). So not changing my vote here. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We are all entitled to different opinions; to me, a person who was considered relevant enough to be discussed in two books (one of which a scientific one) and whose life was covered in foreign media outlets deserves a standalone article, as apparently there is something intriguing about her life. I do not really buy your argument of "[o]ne book we cannot read", as anyone who has taken the trouble to buy the book can actually read about her; there is more to life than (usually) short-lived Internet sources. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Susie was a well-known supercentenarian known for staying active into extreme old age. /Chimney148 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimney148 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)  — Chimney148 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Even the LA Times piece, other than giving the fact that she died and at what age, plus that she lived in one house for 80 years, is entirely concerned with other old people. The article recites the usual unremarkable minutiae such as remembering the Titanic. NOPAGE.  E Eng  04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see a strong reason to delete the story, it isn't read a lot, but it's read. I did a little editing and can add a bit more to the article. There are some primary sources that can clarify some points - which I would not normally use, and generally advise against, but I think it will help tell her story a bit better. I will also add some additional content from secondary sources and see if that helps round out her story a bit better.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I found quite a bit more content in books and newspaper articles - the article is almost 3 times the size it was when I started. There may be too much personal information there - but if it stays it's easy to prune unnecessary information.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The ref section is now a sea of primary sources and laughable passing mentions (my favorite:  The Joy of Pickling, 3rd Edition: 300 Flavor-Packed Recipes for All Kinds of Produce from Garden or Market). No one's going to wade through this to find out if there is, indeed, GNG-qualifying material there. Could you please list the qualifying sources here?  E Eng  20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , please look again. I removed the two census references. As I said above, I very rarely use primary sources (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). But, they have been removed.


 * I found so many other sources since I first mentioned I was tackling the expansion of the article. I also removed the pickle book source, just because it's not worth discussion about it. All the rest are books and news sources, like LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, and some local newspapers.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, you're not getting this.
 * The first source's entire coverage of the subject reads
 * Susie Potts Gibson, the youngest of three U.S. women verified to be 115, died Thursday, according to Nancy Paetz, a granddaughter. Gibson died of natural causes at an assisted living facility in Tuscumbia, Ala., where she was a resident from about 106, Paetz said. For many years before that, Gibson lived alone in the house that had been her home for about 80 years.
 * The second and third sources are the same, and are apparently Robert Young's story of how he looked up the subject in the US Census.
 * The fourth and sixth sources appear to be the same, though there's no preview.
 * Please list the sources that qualify under GNG. Hint: that won't include the one that tells us:
 * Ms. PAETZ: If you asked her what her secret was, she would tell you that it was probably three things. One, she lived for her pickles. She ate lots and lots of pickles. CHADWICK: Okay, pickles is one. Ms. PAETZ: And vinegar. CHADWICK: Vinegar. Ms. PAETZ: We kept, every time we visited, we had to go and buy big jars of vinegar, and big jars of pickles. CHADWICK: How did she take her vinegar? Ms. PAETZ: Well, she put it on everything. I don't think she ever just drank it, but she certainly drank the pickle juice.
 *  E Eng  21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The first source is the Los Angeles Times article. That content is:

"Susie Potts Gibson, the youngest of three U.S. women verified to be 115, died Thursday, according to Nancy Paetz, a granddaughter.

Gibson died of natural causes at an assisted living facility in Tuscumbia, Ala., where she was a resident from about 106, Paetz said. For many years before that, Gibson lived alone in the house that had been her home for about 80 years.

She died three days after another 115-year-old woman, Bettie Wilson, died in New Albany, Miss. Both women were born in Mississippi, but Wilson was one month older than Gibson. A third woman, Elizabeth Bolden of Memphis, Tenn., the oldest of the three by one month, survives her younger peers.

With Gibson's death, Bolden becomes the second-oldest person in the world with documentation, according the Gerontology Research Group of Los Angeles. The oldest living person, also a woman, is 116-year-old Maria Capovilla of Ecuador.

Born Susan Potts, Oct. 31, 1890, in Corinth, Miss., Gibson was the child of a banker, Paetz said. Among her memorable experiences as a young woman was a cross-country trip she vividly recalled winning in 1912. She said she was in a movie theater in California when an announcer interrupted the show to tell the audience that the Titanic was sinking off the coast of Newfoundland.

She married James Gibson, a pharmacist, and the couple moved to Sheffield, Ala. Gibson outlived her husband as well as their son, James.

When Gibson was 90, she still took her boat out alone to go fishing, Paetz said.

She also enjoyed hosting bridge parties at her home and did all the cooking.

She gardened and stayed active with the women's group at her church.

Asked the secret to a long life, Gibson recommended frequent doses of vinegar. She put it on turnip greens and nearly everything else, Paetz said. She also advised eating pickles.

Paetz, however, said Gibson's longevity had to do with her basic rule about spending time.

"My grandmother put things in two pots: what she had to do and what she wanted to do," Paetz said. "Most of the time, what she wanted to do took priority. As a result she was happy."

Gibson is survived by two grandchildren and four great-grandchildren."


 * I have know idea what you mean about them being the same, because I don't think you saw the entire LA Times article. I don't know about the second source - that was used by someone else, I just completed the citation information. The third source is Maier, et. al. - And I think that was the source with the most information - Gibson was discussed in several / a number of places in the book.


 * Same thing, no idea what you mean about it being the same.


 * Ok, is the pickle and vinegar thing silly? - yes. Would it normally be in a WP article? - no, absolutely not. Is this a different case? - yes, IMO. It's like the guy from Russia who lived so many years because he ate yogurt. It was his thing. The pickle and vinegar business is written up many places about her. Who knows that she's not right? She lived to 115. However, as I said after the rewrite - some of the content can absolutely be pruned - there is more personal information than I put in an article.


 * I think you were on the same Donald Trump article as I was. I am extremely reluctant to make a list about what constitute good sources... Are you saying that the list of sources is not sufficient?


 * I gave this article my best college try to save it. You might not like it, and others might not like it. If the general perception is that the rewrite is insufficient to show her notability, then, that's the way it is.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * added clarification in last sentence - underlined.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies re the content of the LA Times piece -- looks like the page got stuck during loading so I only saw the first bit of it. But the problem is the same: there may be the kind of coverage in here qualifying for GNG, but it's drowning in trivia. If you're "reluctant to make a list" of which are the qualifying sources, no one else is going to go to the trouble.  E Eng  00:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I totally get that there is a lot of personal information. My perception \ question was: What is the sort of person like who lives to be 115 years old? And, so I came at it differently than I ever had with a WP article. And, it was the detail that helped make me understand her better.
 * That said, I am very happy to trim out some of the detail.
 * What I said about sources earlier was: All the rest are books and news sources, like LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, and some local newspapers. It is natural that she would be in books like Earth's Elders, Supercentenarians. None of the other sources, and probably the local newspapers are going to establish WP:GNG, right?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just remembered, she was also interviewed by NBC, on NBC News, and I'm pretty sure on the Today show - but I must not have felt good about the source for the Today show, because it's not in the article. If I had access to archives, I am sure that I could find more.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting you trim the article. I'm asking you to show us which sources qualify the subject under WP:GNG.  E Eng  01:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're looking for. This is not a process I am generally involved in. I have nominated a couple of articles for deletion and a COI issue, and due to the backlog I just am doing some quid pro quo input. Anyway, guessing what more you are asking for, I am adding links to: LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, Earth's Elders (I think someone used their own book, but here's their website), Supercentenarians and NBC News was mentioned in Supercentenarians. I also added two sources from   and  to the article. Is this what you're needing?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I went through and did some copy editing to smooth out some of the details. It's a smoother read, I think, now. And, although there is still detail about her personal life, hopefully we don't have to send in search and rescue for anyone drowning in trivia. : ) ...mostly laughing at myself.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only the LA Times piece comes even close to substantial coverage. The rest, of those visible, are passing mentions, in most cases just an entry in a list. This isn't what GNG calls for.  E Eng  18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit that some of the sources are passing mentions, like the Guinness Records book and a few other that she's just in a list. But, you just have to look at the reference section to see that there are several sources with more than passing mentions, including the multiple pages/citations for Supercentenarians and Earth's Elders. The NPR article was about her. If the list was supposed to be based upon % of content - then I would have made a different list. Like I said, I wasn't sure what you were looking for. I think you've already made up your mind - and I really didn't need to put together a list to begin with. And, that's fine. If you don't find her notable, we'll just call that a difference of opinion. I don't agree, but I do respect where you are coming from.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for so many reasons. Still No 29 on the List of the verified oldest women. An encyclopedia is something about history. Old people are living history, their lives proof that history books are not only a waste of paper. If our notability guidelines really showed the need to delete her honorable entry (what I do not see), then we really needed to improve our notability guidelines. Notability does exist beyond New York Times, Fox News and CNN. While certainly canvassing from outside WP is a bad thing, we must not let us push into the opposite direction from them. --SI 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first source is a transcript of the LA Times article (and a copyvio at that), the second is just a list of names, the third is in Dutch (? -- which is fine, but I have no idea what it says), and the fourth is a dissertation, which is not an RS.  E Eng  01:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * More sources:
 * http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/3-3.pdf (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft)
 * http://www.daggy.name/aodp/2006aodp.htm
 * https://www.geni.com/projects/World-s-oldest-people/10683
 * http://www.tngenweb.org/cocke/calfeetree.htm
 * http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/USA.HTM
 * Notability says: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * Notability (people) says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. ... Yes, managing to live that long is certainly a contribution in the speciic field of gerontology. --SI 15:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These "sources" are laughable, or lists, or both (are you really offering as a source a website on which people bet who will die first? ) and living a long time is no more a "contribution to gerontology" than surviving cancer is contribution to oncology.  E Eng  16:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first item looks to be the chapter of a book written by Young, which someone already used as a source in the article. I see no issue with that source. I agree that none of the others should be used.
 * , Did you see my posting above, made at 01:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC) with the summary of the sources for WP:GNG?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a few more sources, but I don't know that they add to GNG because they are just bits of information. She's in a Guinness Record book of 2013, a New York Times article. I've added a bit of content from the New York Times article and the citations to the article and I am going to add a bit from Anniston Star. She's in other "lists" articles like this LA Times article, mention in Bettie Wilson's obituary, and more articles published in journals about chapters from Supercentenarians, but I'm not finding any other new content.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, CaroleHenson, they are much appreciated. :) I find it interesting to see how someone deemed "not notable" (according to others reacting here) can still be retrieved in as little as 21 sources over ten years after her death; the sheer variety of sources - ranging from reliable, scientific publications to extensive obituaries and televised interviews by news crews - also goes to show that people from all layers of society - scientists, journalists, and even what some here would disdainfully call "fans" - did feel that there was something worth reporting about her. Moreover, a citation as "laughable" (a comment made by participants here who even feel that notable supercentenarians such as Sarah Knauss are not worthy of their standalone article as "age alone is no sign of notability", even when Wikipedia consensus strongly disagrees with them ) as the pickles and onions story is still a great example of oral history, a tradition considered a "field of study" . Fiskje88 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, if nothing else, I really enjoyed working on this article. More than most. I don't in any way regret the time spent trying to save the article, that's for sure.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 3 December 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.