Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Muise


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Muise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources - all I could find were obituaries, which do not satisfy the requirement. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent 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  16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete "at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"??? Other than born-married-worked-died, the only thing the article actually says about her is, "She was also a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, and the staff of the nursing home where she lived reported her delight at the team winning the 2004 World Series." Fascinating. WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with nom and EEng. It's probably worth noting that this article has been tagged for a lack of notability for more than half a decade. Maybe we should start a study of the longevity of notability tags on longevity-related articles. David in DC (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with editors above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect There must be some reason why there is such a large number of obituaries. And the "probably the oldest" could be replaced with "believed to be the oldest". The thing with longevity is that there is always the chance that there was someone even older. And I find it highly disrespectful of 930310 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "WTF" has nothing to do with disrespect for the subject, but with the mushy thinking of editors who think an unexplained "probably" belongs in an article. EEng (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Obituaries don't establish notability as they are considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually a person only has one or two obituaries in a newspaper. Mrs. Muise had over 20. 930310 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wire service articles and so on are not independent of one another and only count once. EEng (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obituary notices, typically placed by survivors, usually do nothing to establish notability. But obits written by journalistic staff should be evaluated like other press coverage, and the number of different papers a wire service obit runs in usually indicates to some degree the stature the subject had. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - RIP Bazj (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (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.