Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Baker: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:57, 10 December 2007

Betsy Baker

Another inadequately referenced stub on an old person, fails WP:BIO test of substantive coverage in WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep easily established notability by being very old (the oldest alive in her time) a long time ago. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Sigh. Please, Kitia, do take time to read WP:BIO. Being very old does not establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, they totaly forgot about mentioning really old people in there. I don't think anyone would except deletion of Jeanne Calment as a good-faith nom, but what about these guys? They wer local celebrities, and I think I saw something somewhere about that warranting the article. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want to argue for a change to WP:BIO, you are free to do so at WT:BIO. But unless and until WP:BIO is changed, being old does not make up for lack of substantive coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 14:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think for WP:BIO to say, "1 must be the oldest person in the world to establish notability," or by longevity, is far too specific. For example, it also doesn't explicitt say 1 must be the tallest or heaviest person in the world. Anyways, I don't know how much of WP:BIO an article like this must pass. For example, it doesn't pass all of WP:BIO, as this person isn't a politician or composer. But if this person passes 1 sentence in WP:BIO, I assume it is not enough. Neal (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply See WP:BIO#Basic_criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nom, historical case of extreme longevity. Has sorces and is cited as on of 500 famous Nebraskans. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the impression in the less than 24 hours you've been editing on wikipedia that this is a bad faith nomination? - Galloglass 01:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm awfully suspicious of this person. Neal (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm kinda new to this Wikipedia thing, so I thought that it would help me in the arguement, since it hasn't been going well. My case still stands, however. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ::What gives you the impression in the less than 24 hours you've been editing on wikipedia that this is a bad faith nomination? - [[User:Galloglass|<font color="#003900">'''Gallo'''</font><font color="#007600">'''glass'''</font>]] 01:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 ::Hmm, I'm awfully suspicious of this person. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] ([[User talk:NealIRC|talk]]) 01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
+:I'm kinda new to this Wikipedia thing, so I thought that it would help me in the arguement, since it hasn't been going well. My case still stands, however. '''[[User:I'll bust your beak!|I'll bust your beak!]]''' ''([[User talk:I'll bust your beak!|time for some beak bustin'!]])'' 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)