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 merge/redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies. So Why 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hulmes[edit]

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N: the coverage here consists of a few bursts of attention in 2001 when she thought to be the world's oldest person, then discovered that she was not, then died, with the rest being trivial mentions, none of which satisfies the guidelines. 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 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely living a long time does not by itself make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of her attention in the news was based on the later disproved belief that she was the World's oldest person. A merge to Supercentenarians in the United Kingdom might be more appropriate than a stand alone article that doesn't add anything particularly noteworthy enough to stand out from the other British supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article fails one event. Like Bob Taggart, her fame was partly based on a false claim of being the oldest. The only difference is that she was Britain's oldest and she was a supercentenarian, but we don't give articles to every titleholder or every supercentenarian. This is the kind of information that's better on the gerontology wiki. Longevitydude (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She wasn't even the thing which, if she were that, would also not merit an article. I love that each of these articles always has to include at least one pathetically strained detail, like "reportedly could touch her toes". E Eng 10:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies. Record holders of the oldest person in the UK usually have an article. Inception2010 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)fix Inception2010 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Marge, and what's she got to do with this? E Eng 22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is what Inception means, and because Amy Hulmes is a British supercentenarian, therefore merging her information to a list of British supercentenarians would make more sense than giving her a stand alone article. Longevitydude (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, because I actually thought Inception was talking about someone named Marge. Really I did. E Eng 02:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcastic sense of humor helps make these discussions animated. Maybe he was thinking about Marge Simpson. Longevitydude (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Fails WP:GNG as two routine obituaries and a GRG table does not make someone notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then Redirect to an appropriate list. There's no text worth saving. WP:GNG. WP:SIGCOV. Please see also WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.