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 Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another article on a very old person. She is quite properly included in the relevant lists such as List of living supercentenarians, but she fails WP:BIO: the two references are a) to a yahoogroups mailing list, b) to a short mention in a meals-on-wheels newsletter. No sign of any substantial coverage or anything in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable as per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : I have to say living to 110 is pretty notable in my book. Shoessss |  Chat  15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's grounds for including her in a list, but per WP:BIO, a standalone article is needed only if there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is no evidence hat this article can be expanded beyond a trivial snippet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say a birth certificate and government records are a pretty reliable source, in most cases. Second, there are No definitive guideline for what constitutes “Substantial”. That becomes extremely subjective. Finally, how large does an article have to be? Again, I have seen no definitive guidelines. Mark it as a “Stub” at this point!. Thanks, Shoessss |  Chat  15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The records which you cite are primary sources, which may verify facts but do not establish notability per WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. A meals-on-wheels newsletter is not a reliable source (see WP:RS), and WP:BIO does indeed provide guidance on the interpretation of "substantial". Please do read WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete: Impressive, but not notable. I just did a web search and found no hits for her beyond WP. Matchups (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Age alone does not make a person notable. --WebHamster 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No? See Jeane Calment. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right, no. Age on its own is not notable from a WP standpoint. --WebHamster 12:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Kitia, you're still confusing worthiness with notability: please do read WP:BIO. Calment passes WP:BIO because the article cites substantial coverage in non-trivial soiurces. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO and per Matchups (didn't find any myself either). Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe when she's a little older.. Neal (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  That was my first reaction as well, but it's not about her age but the coverage of her longevity in reliable sources. Matchups (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okey dokey, I'm changing my vote to keep. Neal (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • So where is this coverage that persuades you to say "keep"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • If there is any I'd like to know about it. Neal (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep as per above. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Per above what? Matchups (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of reliable sources .... and if you are writing an article like this then there is template to calculate the age based on birth and today's date. Saying she is 110 means I have to check the history log to see when that was written. Victuallers (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those counters are removed as violations of WP:BLP. Per WP:BLP, all unsourced material on biographies of living people can and must be removed on sight. Having an automated counter on her page presents her age to the day as a verifiable fact, which is of course impossible unless there happens to be a reliable, third-party source documenting that she is alive every time the clock hits 00:00 UTC. As has been seen, sometimes it takes a few days for the notices of death to come out, which means the counter presents a false fact as verifiable and true in these cases. It's a simple issue of verifiability. Every last detail and fact on this page should (ideally) be verifiable. Thus we can say that person X is alive until shown dead, because we can verify through many sources that they are alive until we can verify that they are dead. With exact ages, however, that is not the case. Unless, of course, you just mean a year counter, in which case it's ((birth date and age|year|month|day)). Cheers, CP 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We're getting a bit off-topic here, but BLP prescribes immediate removal only of unsourced contentious material. Assuming that a person's date of birth is reliably sourced, their age, or the fact that they remain alive is not normally contentious (though it may be in cases such as Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, or JFK). Matchups (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It also violates WP:V, unless someone happens to be able to verify that they are they are alive at 00:00 UTC every day. Cheers, CP 21:33, 11 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.