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. Strong disagreement between editors who believe that being the oldest person alive confers notability, and those who believe that coverage for that alone isn't enough. There's no clear policy or guideline basis for either position, so we fall back to ordinary WP:GNG; there is coverage cited, but disagreement about how substantial or relevant it is can't be solved by administrative fiat. So we have no consensus, and the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  19:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Eliza Williams[edit]

Anna Eliza Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NOPAGE, aside from notability concerns. Apparent sources give only the most trivial, usual details. Nothing that isn't appropriately handled in one of the longevity lists. EEng (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. She was the oldest person ever from the United Kingdom and the world's oldest person in 1987. as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Cock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely, longevity record holder of famous country article should be keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Putting aside the question of whether those AfDs were rightly decided, notability is determined by coverage, not status as oldest-somewhere. In addition, there's the NOPAGE question, and you haven't addressed that. EEng (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Famous country? That's a criterion? Wow. David in DC (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you read WP:BIO to include oldest person, she's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.25 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.44.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep World's oldest human is good enough.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong delete. "World's oldest human is good enough" is the summary of everything that is wrong with longevity articles and AfDs. This person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Even if they did, this is a permanent stub, as the only things worth saying about this person are their date of birth and date of death. That's all that their claim of significance is. Clearly if the only things we can say are DOB and DOD, we should be including that information in a list. WP:NOPAGE certainly applies. ~ Rob^Talk 18:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep At the time of her death Anna Eliza Williams was the oldest known woman to ever have lived as well as the oldest person ever from the United Kingdom. She was often featured in British media and was featured in American newspapers several times as well. Proof of this can be seen here:

Listed as Oldest Person (Alton Telegraph, 8 June 1984)

Oldest Person in the World (New Castle News, 3 March 1986)

Celebrates 114 (Cedar Rapids Gazette, 3 June 1987)

New Guinness book makes it official (Sandusky Sunday Register, 17 October 1987)

Oldest Person Dies (Hutchinson News, 30 December 1987)

So in my opinion she was featured in the media several times and was therefore notable enough to have her own article. 930310 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Duplicative ROUTINE coverage, and you haven't answered the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BULLSHIT, and you make stuff up. The page deserves to be expanded with more information and not deleted. 930310 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... if there is such information. Why don't you show us? Until then it's ROUTINE coverage, and you haven't answered the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided several articles for you to read. Read them yourself. 930310 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed them. If there's something there lifting this out of NOPAGE territory, please add it to the article, so we can see what a non-NOPAGE article on the subject would look like. EEng (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A doyenne of humanity is notable. Also we have a coverage while she was alive and a post-mortem coverage. LC-Barti (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — LC-Barti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep She was, at one time, the oldest living person in the world. This title usually comes with a good amount of media coverage, and in this case, it has. There are various reliable sources cited in the article, as well as those provided above in this AfD discussion. Bodgey5 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG as she has received media coverage during more than one occasion. On top of that, she is also referred to outside the realm of news coverage, as evidenced by for instance [1], trying to establish what it is that made her grow to such an old age. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep As proven above, Anna Eliza Williams received a lot of media coverage in the international press. Not only did Anna Eliza Williams lived to 114 years of age, but also she became the oldest recognized living person in the world while the authenticity of her age has been confirmed by an independent scientific organization such as Guinness World Records or Gerontology Research Group.White Eaglet (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — White Eaglet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and Redirect Longevity is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia to discover. Crucial even. But WP:ROUTINE coverage (birthdates and an obit), without more, does not confer notability. It's not significant coverage because it's not significant. Half of the article, such as it is, is "horse race" information about "title-winners" in a mythical contest for outliving some other old person. It's not about the article's subject except in the most tangential of ways. Longevity is not a horse race. There are no "titles" to defend. This article fails WP:GNG and cries out to be redirected to the appropriate list. That's where what little information there is belongs, not in a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible DELETE and redirect There is no content here. This is a list-class topic; one can not be notable for living "a life of idleness" as the article states. WP:BIO does not include longevity. Not notable as an individual, but worthy of existence in a list of people who took a few more breaths than others. Scr★pIron^IV 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the nom 166.170.50.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Delete Being the oldest verified human at some point in time is not enough alone to make someone notable. This is especially true since even at present many people lack a verified birth date, so being the oldest verrified person and being the actual oldest person are not the same. Few categories tend to increase the bias of Wikipedia towers English-speaking and Wetern European biographies more than these do, with nothing added to the project by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being the world's oldest person is enough to make someone notable when the article includes reliable and verifiable sources to back up the claim. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a guideline supporting what you say? And you've not addressed the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can't, because no such guideline exists. WP:BIO is clear enough, and old age isn't part of it. Scr★pIron^IV 14:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have always kept the "oldest person in X" articles. The recent flood of AfDs trying to assert a change in consensus is not convincing. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - bad precedent does not require continuing to make bad decisions. Scr★pIron^IV 18:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, OUTCOMES does say this:

Winners of lotteries and other games of chance are not considered inherently notable and are usually deleted.

So that's an end to it: winners of the longevity lottery should be deleted. EEng (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an end to it, because it's not a lottery. You just called it that. Two totally different things. And yet again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<stares in drop-jawed disbelief> EEng (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pick up your jaw. It's obviously not a lottery. There's nothing to scratch off. There are no ping-pong balls flying hither and yon. There's no one announcing random numbers in stentorian tones between a Cialis ad and one for a feminine hygiene product at precisely 10:59 p.m. Everyone knows that's what a lottery looks like. Sheesh! David in DC (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just strike all that irrelevant, unhelpful crap above then. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your striking of other people's comments. Please do not do that again. It's naughty. Assuming good faith this was a momentary indiscretion. Please do not disabuse us of that notion. It's what stands between you and more serious consequences. David in DC (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about you both quit with the constant sarcastic, condescending comments, and be WP:CIVIL. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't mean constant, but rather continual. EEng (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am the oldest person in my house but that does not make me worthy of an article. I'm thinking of getting right on the 'life of idleness' plan though Like her I am unlikely to get on anything notable doing that. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there's a difference between being the oldest person in your house and the oldest in the world. That's a meaningless argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage in reliable sources and being the oldest person out of several billion. Passes WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[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.