Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maude Farris-Luse

Maude Farris-Luse

Maude Farris-Luse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nom 10-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable GRG (2), primary-source SSDI, and one 26-sentence CBS article that does not support some of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members, with "citation needed" already in article) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Notability of one-source one-event bio should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. She was, at one point, the oldest living person. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • jc, your contributions to three AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in all three of your cases, the individual is in at least seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 16:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The article's only reliable, secondary source is the 26-sentence CBS article, which is insufficient to establish notability. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Hardly anyone ever gets to 115 and she is the oldest from Michigan ever.DHanson317 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Another case of a pre-emptive AFD on a longevity-related article by User:John J. Bulten. Next time you submit batches of articles for AFDs, please do you own research to try and locate articles. [1][2][3]
  • I don't have the WP:BURDEN, especially when there are so many malformed WP articles to start with, and I am choosing to start with the simpler methods due to volume. Would you mind adding content to the article based on those links, so that I can consider what action they support (as I implied, merge can be considered if you do)? JJB 20:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Every argument JJBulten makes is incorrect. Notability is not dis-established by the lack of sources on the page, but by the lack of available sources. A quick check of Google news and other searches will find that reliable sources exist. While it may not be JJ' burden to add them, the Wiki-policy thing to do is to tag the article for "reference improve."

If an article is too short, it could be "stubbed".

Maud Farris-Luse was recognized as the world's oldest person and significant coverage exists for multiple events:

1. gaining the title 2. turning 115 3. dying

In addition, inclusion of a name in a list is NOT a reason to delete, but in fact a reason to keep. Just as Hank Aaron ranking high on a home run list and an RBI list, so being on multiple lists is a reason to keep, not a reason to delete.Ryoung122 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you tag the article or add the sources? Why don't you mention that the existence on multiple lists is due to the same editor group as the existence in a bio article, or that arguing from one to the other is circular, or that you were just accusing others of arguing circularly? JJB 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Being the undisputed oldest living person, for any length of time, is sufficient cause for notability. moontube —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

What an interesting position you take in your fourth edit ever! You might want to read what basic notability means. Incidentally, did anyone invite you to this page? JJB 04:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of previous edits I have made is immaterial to this discussion. Anyone who is declared the oldest person in the world receives coverage from media outlets all over the world. That satisfies the definition of notability, basic or otherwise. Incidentally, JJ, did anyone invite you to this page? moontube —Preceding undated —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Keep. For John J. Bulten every supercentenarian is nonnotable, even Jean Calment. He and his friends nominate all these articles about supercentenarians, because of his religious believes. He believes the only notable elderly people are those mentioned in the bible, who claim to be minimum 130+ years old. Now where is the proof these people were really that old? What stops me from "requesting" deletion of articles of every single elderly person from the bible? Who says the genesis is a reliable source? I dont! I do not believe the ages claimed in the bible. And that is my right to believe this, because we live in a free world. So in name of the free world. Let us stop this battle once and for all. I vote to keep all these articles, because if they are deleted, things may get out of control. We are having a battle here against believers of aged people in the bible/genesis and believers of aged people in the current world. Just my two cents.