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, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 11:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Graham (supercentenarian)[edit]

Martha Graham (supercentenarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another inadequately referenced short stub on a very old person. She may merit an entry on a list of very old people, but there is no sign of the substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources required to meet WP:BIO. Some of the commentary in the article appears to be original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dev/null for another centenarian wearing a blue suit with underpants on the outside with an S on their chest. A centenarian is still a centenarian right up to 199, so why the "super"? --WebHamster 16:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I agree, why not call them undecacentenarian or whatever. 'Super' just doesn't sound so fit, since it's a subjective word. Neal (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • It's Latin for "above". Wiktionary is your friend. wikt:super#Latin. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Especially troublesome is that much of this seems to be original research without citations to back it up. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and CP. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Guiness World Records and GRG are not reliable sources? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I don't believe that GRG is reliable, though others may differ; but both Guinness World Records and GRG offer only trivial coverage. Once again, Kitia, please do read what WP:BIO says about non-trivial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, neither offer more than trivial coverage, but it is not a factoid. There was still info on her (such as the fact that she was born a slave and that she was the oldest person ever for a period) that constitute notabilty, right? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it doesn't constitute notabilty; it is an assertion of notability, but not evidence of it. Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please do read what WP:BIO says about non-trivial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kitia, I think you meant Guinness considers her the oldest, right? Since her case (of 114) is extremely weak. Neal (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Guinness never really designated her the oldest person in the world, until a Robert Young at age ~12 sent them an e-mail to. Neal (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Since this article is used in several succession boxes, merging it into a list will not allow the succession boxes to work well. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fans of something creating succession boxes is in no way a valid argument for keeping articles about the things "boxed." Edison (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
    • Reply The problem is, in many cases the closing admins counts up votes regardless if the person used a valid reason or not. Anyways, you can probably cite that source. Drat, I myself used Richard Norton's reason in another AfD somewhere, I may have to retract that reason. Neal (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep as per Kitia. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — I'll bust your beak! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Given that Kitia's rationale is is based on an erroneous understanding of WP:BIO you may want to reconsider that standpoint. --WebHamster 12:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand. There is no specified policy of supercentenarians on WP:BIO, so if it even asserts a minor claim of notability (like this one) it should not be subject to AfD. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't seem to understand that if there's no specific mention in WP:BIO you don't arbitrarily make one up. Start a consensus on the Notability pages, not on an AfD. As it stands this article does not meet WP:BIO, and until there is a specific category then it comes under the general auspices of biographical notability. The way you think it should go is immaterial and should be ignored by the closing admin. WP:BIO states non-trivial and substantial. It does not say unless the article's subject is getting on a bit. --WebHamster 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having been the oldest living person ever for a time obviously constitutes notability. WP:BIO has a common sense clause and it should be invoked here. BovineBeast (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the oldest person is an assertion of notability, biut does not remove the need for substantial coverage per WP:BIO. Common sense says that there is no point in keeping a standalone article on someone who clearly fails the core notability test, when all the information in the very short article is already covered in no less than three lists: Oldest people, List of the oldest people, and Oldest validated person by year of birth. The article can of course be recreated if further research eveals substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable. Needs more references.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is notability demonstrated per WP:BIO? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 'List of...' She deserves a sentence or two, but until there is enough for a Whole Article (as in WP:RS compliant), a mention in a List will do. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment - does anyone have a Guinness Book of World Records? If she is indeed in the book, she would be notable, in which case keep. BTW, it's hard to have multiple media mentions when you die in 1959, and in the conditions she died (race may have played a factor; it often did back then). The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The Guinness Book of World Records would help verify the claim and justify her inclusion in the 3 lists where she is already included, but the notability test for a standalone article article requires substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to reply - I do believes this satisfies the spirit, if not the letter of WP:BIO, if it pertains to someone who was a one point the longest person ever to have lived (apologies to Methuselah). I do believe that The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field may apply as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I don't think it comes anywhere near the spirit of WP:BIO. The footnote to The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field is relevant here: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians". So far as we can determine, his person gas not been written about by any reliable sources, except to include her name and dates in a list.
        What is the point of having a standalone article when all that can be verifiably written about her is one short sentence? She is already in three lists: Oldest people, List of the oldest people, and Oldest validated person by year of birth. What does it add to the encylopedia to duplicate a list's contents across stub articles which say nothing more than is in the lists? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As someone pointed out to me on a similar AFD, I worry we would be ridiculously guilty of recentism if we ignored this person. S/he would have received notable covereage if s'he were alive today, and if s/he weren't an ex-slave growing up in the South (hard to get media coverage). What works now should work then. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spartan, we are not ignoring this person: as above, she is in three lists. But WP:V is one of wikipedia's fundamental policies: everything has to be sourced. I'm a strong opponent of recentism, but we can't counter it by creating articles for which there are no sources which allow us to say anything. There are countless people from the past who might have received more substantive coverage if they were alive today, but we can't just invent something to create an article about someone who we reckon should have been paid more attention: that's original research. It might be nice if there was somrthing more to say about her, but the fact is that there isn't.
            Please could address the question asked above: what does it add to the encyclopedia to duplicate a list's contents across stub articles which say nothing more than is in the lists? What exactly is such an article for, if it has nothing to say? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because it does? If you look at the article it clearly states, besides what is mentioned in liststs, that she was born into slavery and died in Fayetteville, North Carolina, clearly sourced from the external links. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, Kitia, but that's not true. http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html says "Martha Graham 114 c. 180 December 1844 June 25,1959" (no mention of place or date). The other link is to http://www.grg.org/ , which is a website front page with no relevant info. If you can find a reliable source for the extra info that "Martha Graham was born into slavery and died in Fayetteville, North Carolina", that snippet can be easily added as a footnote to each of the three lists. It's not enough info to make an article more than one sentence long. One sentence is not an article, it's a snippet, a factoid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • There was something on GRG that said that, I know. I am looking for it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Its at http://www.grg.org/Adams/EmergSupCentPop1.htm. Will add to article. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That reference is so trivial that it is worth quoting in full what it has to say about Martah Graham: "The Moroccan Grand Vizier El Hadj Mohammed El Mokri and the American former slave Martha Graham both turned 112 in 1956 according to The Guinness Book of World Records, but in both cases the evidence presented is far from satisfactory." So well still have only two trivial references, one of which casts doubt on the whole claim. This looks more and more like someone who merits footnoted entry in a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Wow, that's a pretty bold thing to say. The oldest person ever for a period belongs in a list. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It appears bold only if you haven't read WP:BIO. A wikipedia article is not a badge of honour or a form of recognition or memorial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The core fact of this article (her birthdate) has never been unsourced despite a request that's been outstanding since April 2007. No other sources have yet been found to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria or that this page could ever be expanded past this one-sentence sub-stub. Being old does not automatically make you notable. Rossami (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (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.