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 Keep. Those favoring keep and those favoring delete simply read our policies and standards quite differently. There is coverage here from reliable sources (and more coverage, basically repetitive, is easily found.) The GRG has been found to be an RS for such articles at a WP:RSN discussion. Does WP:BLP1E apply, or is this not the sort of situation for which it was crafted? There being no clear policy-based answer, I went with satisfaction of the WP:GNG (which is present) and the numbers of editors expression an opinion here. I think we need a general RfC and a resulting guideline to set more than a local consensus for such cases in future. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HalloweenNight (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Too controversial for an NAC, especially by a quite inexperienced editor. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Gerena Rivera (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Non notable individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E subject only known for longevity and WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. One of the sources even states there is virtually no media coverage. The sources used don't help either. 1 is a name and residence (1 power point slide of about 50+), 2 and 3 are a listing in a table, 4 is for her 115th birthday (note: this source says there is virtually no news coverage on her) and the last is an obituary. She is notable to be on a list, which she is on several. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Longevity is not one event any more than being an artist or a politician is one event. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as per the last AfD which was only four months ago (not much has changed since). She was the all-time longevity record holder for Puerto Rico. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The prior SPA was (as this one is on its way to being) sock-infested. [1] EEng (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with Ollie231213. also, User:Timtrent (talk · contribs) is doing created abnormal and inappropriate delete discussions many times, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeralean Talley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakari Momoi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Lang (supercentenarian), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Weaver, etc. User:Timtrent, your personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is not good reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The previous AfD regarding this page - which was only a few months ago - was closed as keep. Nothing has changed in the article since then, so why nominate it for deletion again? She recieved sufficient news coverage to adequately source the article, and is the oldest women ever from Puerto Rico. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOPAGE, as usual. The article says almost nothing about her -- it's full of junk about how she was the sixth oldest blah blah, after the seventh oldest became the ninth oldest when the certified third oldest died and the second oldest had doubt cast. The prior AfD was sock-infested. EEng (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians, I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you. Firstly, world's oldest person/woman/man titleholders typically get a lot of media coverage, implying that being the WOP/WOW/WOM is notable. Occasionally they don't, but this may be for reasons such as the person being in poor health, wanting to remain anonymous, or whatever. But even if that's the case, that doesn't make their achievement any less. It's still the same "title". Therefore, I think that a more general discussion about whether WOPs/WOWs/WOMs are notable needs to take place, to see if consensus can be reached. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WOP guidelines for biographies state an article like this (one or two reliable sources establishing notability and notable only for her age) belongs on a list, not a standalone article. As stated, three sources tell us nothing useful so that leaves the 115th birthday (which would be a case of WP:BLP1E as this is the only coverage she got) and the obituary (which is routine coverage). And no, these sources do not provide significant details on anything but her longevity as you can see in the article with the two paragraphs dedicated to longevity trivia. If you take out the excess trivial information about being 7th oldest, oldest in Florida, etc you are left with nothing more than what is in the table at List of Puerto Rican supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She most certainly is notable. She was the last living person from the Florida, the last living Hispanic American, and the last living Puerto Rican to have been born in the 19th century. She was also one of the last 10 living people worldwide to have had that distinction. I actually met and interviewed her for Turning Point USA two months before her death, and I have more information on her. I will have it posted by the end of the week if you keep this page. ----DaKardii (talk) — DaKardii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NOTE: I have restored this "keep" vote after it was removed by EEng. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: What I removed was a series of bizarre edits, including a spurious "close" [2], by an editor with with 34 edits who can't decide whether he's an IP or not. It's not my job to find some kernel of contribution in that kind of nonsense. EEng (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed a user with an IP. This is the first time I've done a talk page. Go easy on me, please. DaKardii (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it so difficult to just apologise for making a mistake? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all apologizing‍—‌when I've made a mistake. If you can get all the longevity sock- and meat-puppets on board to not close AfDs after just two days, switch back and forth from IP to logged-in editing, and so on, that would really help. EEng (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the IP and the account are the same person? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP and the account (my account) are not the same person. The IP in question is "User 166." He//she is a notorious troll from California who has repeatedly vandalized articles on supercentenarians by doing things such as putting in false death dates. I, on the other hand, am from Florida, and have had the honor of personally meeting Mrs. Gerena Rivera. If you looked up my IP address, and read my article on Turning Point USA (which can be found here: http://hypeline.org/antonia-gerena-rivera-a-look-into-the-past), you would see that. Furthermore, User 166 has been banned. I have not. That alone should be proof that I am not him/her. DaKardii (talk)

Read my Hypeline article for information about her uniqueness and how she has affected other people. She gave a learning experience not only to her former students, but to me, who interviewed her as a project on the differences in outlooks on life between different generations. [User:DaKardii|DaKardii]] (talk) 12:08 24 October 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is certainly notable: over 115 years old when she died; one of the last 10 living people worldwide, last living person from Florida, last living Puerto Rican to have been born in the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belandi76 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Belandi76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete WP:NOPAGE. WP:GNG. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, of encyclopedic value in the article. It's nearly all "horse-race" reporting about a mythical aging contest. Human longevity is a fit (and important) topic for an encyclopedia to cover. But the mundane details of the everyday life of every long-lived person is not - and bloviation about their place jockeying for position in some fanciful race to hold a "title" or break a "record" is nonsensical and a little bit morbid. Are users of this encyclopedia expected to be looking for information about which old person on which continent staved off the visit of the Angel of Death by 12 days or 7 months longer than which other old person? There's a serious misapprehension evident in the !votes above about the meaning of the term "notability" on Wikipedia. It's not as loose as the conversational meaning of the word. Reasonable people can differ about whether a particular senior citizen is notable in this sense. But "WP:notable" is a term of art on Wikipedia, with a very specific definition. The General Notability Guidelines require non-trivial, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of one another and of the subject. We don't have that here. We have a slideshow with a picture of the subject and an assertion of her age from a presentation by a longevity expert: WP:OR? We have a couple of links to Gerontology Research Group web pages: WP:RS? WP:OR? And we have a birthday article and an obit, with mundane details of the subject's life and some "horse race" data.WP:GNG? Any way you slice, dice, mince or mangle these "sources" you do not wind up with a bio appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, at least not if you're following Wikipedia's rules. David in DC (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned above, not much has changed since the last nomination. On top of that, it's still interesting how some people can judge that an article is worth deleting when a quick Google search identifies potential new sources; instead of opting for deletion, they could also try and improve the article - as that would be a sign of building on the Wiki community - or labelling the article a stub that requires expansion. Deletion is not the answer to everything.Fiskje88 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Aside from someone seriously needing to put all the socks back in the drawer (there appear to be some on both sides), being a supercentenarian with a well-sourced article indeed seems to equal notability. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DaKardii, Montanabw, and Ollie231213 provide good arguments for notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above that the subject is notable. We have sources that document her notability, and there is precedent (and a recent AFD) that support it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as discussed in the first AfD nomination for this article, and many other AfD's regarding articles on people that are notable for longevity. Longevity of life is not a single event; many sources on longevity cite events that have occurred during longevity, such as 114th birthdays, etc - these are single events. Therefore, this article subject does not qualify for WP:1E. Also, it is important to note that people have been citing WP:BLP1E - this is different than WP:1E and only used for BLP articles, which does not apply here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per above arguments and in fact there is no difference since the last AfD nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of course someone who's 115 gets written up in the paper--but note that all the coverage is indeed from the local paper. That kind of coverage typically does not add up to notability. Sorry, but I don't see a lot of decent arguments in this discussion--"seems to be notable" isn't an argument, and "well she's the oldest woman so she's notable" is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing has changed since the last AfD--well, that was not a very strong AfD in terms of arguments.

  So. Old people aren't inherently notable, though that may change, and thus discussion here needs to focus on the strength of the sources. Well, three of the references are from the Gerontology Research Group (not a secondary source, really); one is from "hypeline", whatever that may be; one of them is a slide from a (rather poorly done) PowerPoint on old people. That leaves three (3) sources that can properly be called secondary: an obituary and----no, only one from the Miami Herald, cited twice, and another from the Bradenton Herald. But wait, look again--it's the same article. In other words we have one (1) valid reference for the topic.

  I have no doubt one could Google and find a couple more articles, but my point is that even a bunch of such articles don't easily add up to notability--not until there's something discussing her in any kind of depth, something a bit broader than the local paper. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. I saw your input here and wanted to respond to it. A basis that factors into your argument is the fact that the events that occurred during her life were published by local newspapers. I wanted to acknowledge this argument, as this point reminds me of how we define secondary sources on Wikipedia, and also describe their relevance or ability to establish notability. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. Hypeline is the news website of Turning Point USA, a conservative student activist website. For more information, use this URL. (http://www.turningpointusa.net/aboutus) In addition, the GRG should actually be considered a PRIMARY source. It is considered an authority for the Guinness Book of World Records when tracking the world's oldest people.(http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/25/local/me-aged25) DaKardii (talk)

• How is the GRG not considered a secondary source? It's not self-published or published by someone close to the subject. And reliability isn't based on media coverage alone. The fact that she is verified by the GRG, #37 on the all-time list, and also the recordholder for Puerto Rican women and Florida residents, is evidence of notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Antonia Gerena Rivera is still the oldest Puerto Rican woman ever and she was also the oldest Florida resident ever. We had this AfD just a little while ago and the result was KEEP, so why start this discussion again? The article is still the same as the one that existed at the time of the first AfD. 930310 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Lack of reliable, independent, signifiant coverage: The Gerontology Research Group sources are a research organization publishing their findings on their own website. Similar to an award's website publishing their winners. We need other organizations reporting their information. But "there has been virtually no news coverage of this woman's existence" [3], another finding by the same organization more important than her age or ethnicity. GRG only deals with supercentenarians. Simply being one, or being "oldest..." does not guarantee an article on Wikipedia (similar recent AfDs not keep'd: WP:Articles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc, WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Eudoxie Baboul...). Also how could these two data tables [4] [5] possibly qualify as signifiant coverage?

[6] is labelled as a local obituary, generally local news sources can't be used to show notability and I have verified the other [7] as being the same article. Also labelled as a "Breaking News Blog" [8] - "Local breaking news from Bradenton and Manatee County". And I don't think Hypeline can be considered a reliable source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DaKardii (talk) 1) The Hypeline source is independent. I would know, because I wrote it. 2) Regarding the GRG, if it's a research website, then how do its findings lack the merit required to be on Wikipedia? As a research site, it provides educational value, like Wikipedia does. By your logic, every supercentenarian article should have references to the GRG deleted, which would result in many of said articles not having enough evidence to justify their existence. 3) GRG has a table on the world's oldest people. It does not merely validate supercentenarians. (http://www.grg.org/Adams/B.HTMhttp://www.grg.org/Adams/B.HTM) 4) How are local sources not evidence? Local sources are often used to discover claims of longevity and prompt investigations into the person's age. If professionals who validate supercentenarians take them into consideration, ordinary Wikipedia users should, too. DaKardii (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) I have nothing else to say about the Hypeline source. 2, 3) There are thousands of research groups all over the world doing all sorts of stuff, while they can provide good information, not everything they do is wiki-notable. GRG may be ok as a source for some out of the hundreds if not thousands of people they have looked into who do have articles, but they are not notable just because of what GRG did for them, they have other sources and/or reasons. 4) An obituary in a local newspaper (remember, both are the same) is not a sign of notability, think about it. GRG's non-age finding that I mentioned should be taken into consideration as well. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records, and simply outliving other people does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And because she is not "notable" by your standards, her secrets to longevity don't deserve to be heard? DaKardii (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then they wouldn't be secrets anymore, would they? EEng (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect - to List_of_oldest_living_people. Not notable for standalone article unless notable for some other reason than living so long. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not everyone turns 115. In my opinion someone who wins the genetic lottery is notable compared to other people. They are covered in the news and thus notable. Petervermaelen (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Petervermaelen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - While WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG apply, it appears the standard has been set that "oldest" in a valid category does in fact establish a thin enough amount of notability to count for inclusion.Tiggerjay (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where has that "standard" been "set"? Notability is set by coverage only. Certain types of people e.g. Nobel winners, are presumed notable because it's presumed they will have received GNG-satisfying coverage, to save trouble in such common cases. But such presumptions are rebuttable i.e. if it turns out they don't pass GNG/BP1E after all, then they're not notable after all. EEng (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a mistake to apply WP:BLP1E to any of these cases because they are, if notable, notable for life span and not as events. WP:GNG applies to all cases of course. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and Rivera will forever be remembered as the sixth oldest living woman at the time of her death. No one will have that title. 166.171.121.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sixth oldest of 7,300,000,000 people, oldest verified person ever born in Puerto Rico and resident of Florida. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bearian put it better was "well-established precedent" that super-centenarians have their own pages, and are notable for that fact alone. While some have more developed pages, the reality is that most of them wouldn't receive the coverage on WP if they were not super-centenarians with their own pages. It was for that one-event that triggered a deeper look into the lives of these people and uncovered additional notable facts about their past. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a several editors have noted, the nominator clearly did not do a simple online search for sources. Also, well-established precedents favor keeping articles of extremely old super-centenarians. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2015 (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.