Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Francis

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. Daniel (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Francis[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

In this article, simply being the nth oldest person alive is not enough for it to be notable. Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people list criteria that I think rancis demonstrates well.

Basic criteria:

1. In-depth coverage over multiple sources - Francis has news articles from multiple RS such as ABC and WaPo covering her life specifically in multiple articles over the course of multiple of her birthdays (i.e. she isn't some fad that people celebrated when she turned 110 and then ignored her forever).

2. Primary sources - Article still maintains RS without primary sources or primary documents.

Other:

She also avoids the invalid criteria listed, such as the relationship thing (she is the subject, does not share a relationship to one), and does not rely on the web rankings for significance. Her achievement of longevity alone (as supported by the GRG) is her notability. While the "nth oldest person alive" is her claim to fame in the article, she exhibits more than enough RS for an achievement for notability imo. EytanMelech (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity, what notability criteria, if any, are you basing your nomination on? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia measures notability in terms of obtaining coverage, not in terms of obtaining records. And here, we have coverage in spades, from The Washington Post all the way to The Jerusalem Post. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: I just read your comments on this page and the other page. I should've done a quick Google search to see if there are plenty of reliable sources that demonstrate that these two people are notable. I just figured that the reason for notability was only because of her age and nothing else. From now on, before I nominate oldest people pages, I will be more careful in doing so. I own my mistakes and it was totally my fault for doing so. Thank you for your understanding. Interstellarity (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Interstellarity—appreciate the sentiment. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of whether we believe someone should be notable based on their longevity, Francis has received significant coverage in enough RSes to establish notability, as discussed above. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being 6th of something is not notable. Does Wikipedia has articles about the 6th of anything else? Athel cb (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plenty. We have an article about John Quincy Adams. Thincat (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not comparable. Adams is not there because he was No. 6 but because he was a notable s@tatesman. Athel cb (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Francis isn't there due to being "nth", but for being a notable supercentenarian. EytanMelech (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Complies with general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has plenty socures and info to be notable the old "being old doesn't mean someone is notable" is a inherently biased and subjective argument that was exploited to delete almost every page of this topic hopefully this isnt the case here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 01:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets general notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Berg and per User:EytanMelech N1TH Music (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources showing notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2024 (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.