Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Sahmaunt

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Sahmaunt[edit]

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

Sun Dance performed at the time of her birth, fact that she attended an historical church, receipt of land (same as all Kiowas), and her belief in education, don't warrant a standalone article. ~~Whether or not notable, recommend redirection to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. List might mention that 400 people attended her birthday.~~ Apparently non-notable. EEng (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query for @EEng: The article's infobox refers to the subject as a "Kiowa leader." Is there any indication that she was some sort of tribal elder, council member or elected officeholder? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be sourced to anything. I searched all the sources and external links for the string lead and found only "In addition to being a full-blood member of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, she was a women's leader in the United Methodist Church." EEng (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Do we have a list for oldest Native Americans and/or old First Nations members? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was well-featured in the media and was notable due to other reasons than longevity as well. 930310 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

@930310: Could you link to a few examples of the significant coverage of the subject which you believe establishes the subject's notability for reasons other than longevity? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She lived to 101 which is not notable. She may have been the oldest person in her community of 12,000 people when she died, but so what? The article calls her a Leader with no substantiation, maybe confusing "Elder" for leader, but Elder just means she was older then the young people. Women's leader in the local church is not a reason for an article. Not seeing anything worth keeping. Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 101? Oh for crikey's sake, I didn't even notice that. EEng (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While age does added to her notability it appears she is covered by reliable sources regarding her presence in the community. I found these sources here [1] and this source [2]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In one source there's a sentence about her and one about her children, and in the other she's a parenthetical suspension in the middle of a sentence. That's significant coverage? EEng (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, gentlemen, neither of the linked references above constitute anything like "significant coverage." Yes, the subject was a Gold Star mother (one of her sons died during World War II; yes, she was recognized by the Methodist church as the Oklahoma Indian Mother of the Year. In both cases, she received approximately one sentence of coverage. That's less than what the local Kiwanis Club gets in the local newspaper when the Kiwanians elect their new officers. These debates really point out all of the flaws inherent in trying to build centenarians (and supercentenarians) into something inherently notable for purposes of stand-alone Wikipedia articles. These are perfectly lovely men and women who, by virtue of good genes and good fortune, have lived to a ripe old age. The overwhelming majority of them have lived perfectly ordinary lives, and there really is no encyclopedic content beyond (maybe) those who temporarily held the Guinness record for oldest living person on the planet, all of which could be handled perfectly well in various list articles (name, birth date, birth place, date of death, place of death) broken down by nationality. The proponents of these articles, including those apparently associated with the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), need to find another outlet for this content because half or more of these articles are getting merged to a list or deleted outright. If the general notability guidelines were strictly applied -- without the overheated advocacy of proponents -- then even more would be merged or deleted. Wikipedia is not a website-hosting service for non-notable topics, but various other user-contributed "wiki" websites and hosting services do exist; perhaps GRG participants should consider starting one of their own to host this content, so that extended bios for every verifiable person who reaches 100 or 110 years of age may be recognized without having to artificially inflate the subjects into something most of them clearly are not: "notable" per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GRG folk have already adopted the approach you recommend. See here. Perhaps the hobbyists who once made common cause with the GRG folk would consider joining them. David in DC (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. WP:FANCRUFT. David in DC (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spent today in a nursing home talking with people, and it reinforced the idea that living a long time does not equal notable. Living a really long time is not an achievement in the normal sense, but more like a punishment for most people. Being really old generally sucks and comes with pain, loss of freedom, family, senses, mobility, mental agility and so much more. Unlike the person who works hard and dreams of getting to the Olympics/top of Business/President/famous actor etc no one in the care home is thinking "if I can just breath longer then Fred I'll be the oldest person in South Dakota or born the former Russian Empire or the oldest person living in the USA to have immigrated from Ireland. I can't wait for Grace and Wilma to die so I can seize the title of oldest woman in wherever and get my Wikipedia article finally."

The people writing WOP articles are basically tracking old people for sport (they call it "research") by creating articles, titles and succession boxes without the consent or knowledge of the generally private people they track and profile. Age is one of many superlatives that people can achieve by living - fat, skinny, short, tall, smart, stupid, married most times, most children, and so on. Take super fat people who also get human interest story type media attention occasionally. Would it be acceptable to write bios, lists and succession boxes for the 100 fattest people born in Germany or Spain with sublists by province, men, and women, plus continental and world superlists? Should we track hundreds of fat people with succession lists for dozens of "fattest titles in place x or area y", tracking their names, exact weights, birth and death dates and locations on Wikipedia? Would anyone suggest we pull together lists of all people over an arbitrary 400 lbs who ever lived or sought to verify their weight?

Then there is the question of "verified". If some random person came to most Wikipedia editors and asked for their birth certificate, passport, marriage license, and other personal ID most thinking people who tell them to go away and maybe call the cops. Is it really alright to seek personal documents from these people, or their often quite old and maybe incapacitated children? While some might want to cooperate, many must not. Then there are all the people who don't get identified as being super old by the WOP trackers. So all these made up titles are extremely suspect given the evident gaps in available data.

As for notability based on the kind of sources trotted out - it is almost impossible to live over 100 years and never get a mention in the news or online somewhere. So a handful of mentions online does not impress me much. Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research is the same thing as exercising some sport? Every professional geriatric who does this for their job, will feel personally attacked by that assumption. So please be more carefull with your words next time. Thank you in advance Petervermaelen (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You begin with "I spent today in a nursing home talking with people, and it reinforced the idea that living a long time does not equal notability" and end it with "it is almost impossible to live over 100 years and never get a mention in the news or online somewhere"... So, what you're telling me is that people who live an unusually long time get mentioned in the news, which means (guess what) that longevity clearly DOES confer notability. You defeated your own argument. That whole essay is an exercise in original research. You have no idea how the GRG collect documents. Neither the GRG nor GWR claim that their "oldest person" titles are definitive, only the oldest known, verified person. There's no reason to call them suspect. You could call boxing titles made up because Joe down the pub says he could knock them out. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per logical reasons listed above. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 19 December 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.