Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsie Thompson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This is discussion is way overdue (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Thompson[edit]

Elsie Thompson (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)

Classical case of WP:BLP1E. Just living for a long time does not make someone notable. Also fails WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is not just a super centenarian, but the oldest living person in Florida and the last person in Florida born in the nineteenth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.155.164 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. As is usual with most of these supercentenarian articles (Bernice Madigan is another) the notability is marginal at best. Adding trivia (which surely violatess some wiki policy) does not add notability. Previouss cases such as this have resulted in a Redirect to a List by Country but as the List of supercentenarians from the United States is already at 126k I can't see the benefit of adding such a minor case as this would benefit that article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's already in the list, so you wouldn't have to add anything to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect — JJJ (say hello) 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — She is the 8th oldest living person in the world. If this were a discussion of tennis player rankings, no one or almost no one would suggest deleting the Wikipedia page of the 8th best curernt tennis player. Why should it be different for the oldest verified living people in the world? Futurist110 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, the 8th ranked tennis player certainly would be notable and justifiedly so, but this person is not notable. The difference is that to become the 8th ranked tennis player, you'll have to win a number of important tournaments. Those multiple events will be covered and almost certainly there will be articles discussing this person's biography in-depth. To become the world 8th oldest person, all you have to do is continue living. Usually there is some coverage in local rags. Not really the same accomplishment or level of notability... --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To continue living at an age where the annual odds of dying are 50% or more is a very large accomplishment. I'd be extremely impressed if you or anyone else on Wikipedia managed to keep on living for years after turning 110, considering that at that age it's extremely easy to die. It's easy to live for an additional several months when you're 20, 30, or 50. Not so much when you're 110 or 113. Specific supercentenarians do often get covered by the media, as in this case. If you're saying that the media covers tennis players more, perhaps, but then again the same thing might be said of media coverage of tennis players vs. scientists, even though the work that scientists do is much more important. Futurist110 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is: to go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you. So I don't really see it as an "accomplishment". And whereas the coverage of tennis players may actually tell the reader something of interest, with (super)centenarians it usually is limited to "she still likes to smoke" or something trivial like that. Very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting, apart from being long... --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False. One's actions do often affect how long one will live. If one avoids overeating, using drugs, getting sick, et cetera, and continues to have a will to live, then one's odds of living another several months after 110 go way up, as do his/her odds of reaching age 110 in the first place. How long we live is based on both potential and expression of that potential. If someone had great genes but partied all weekend and didn't eat right, they wouldn't be pushing 114. To claim that "very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting" is POV-biased and you should recuse yourself from this discussion for POV bias. Clearly, if you don't want an article on Wikipedia because "I don't like it," that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, "110th birthday", "111th birthday", and "112th birthday" are multiple events, each receiving coverage. Also, please read the info in the articles linked to her page. There might be some interesting stuff in there. Finally, in my opinion, the top tennis players don't have much practical value, since tennis is just a game. In contrast, supercentenarians are studied by scientists in order to see why some people live so long and how the human body and mind act at age 110+. I apologize if some of what I wrote sounds harsh, but I was just making an effective argument. Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Your reasoning above contains so many misunderstandings about what an encyclopedia is or is not (and about WP policies) that I really have no time to explain in depth all the ways in which you go wrong. Just one point: if there is anything interesting about the life of this person (apart from just continuing living), please add that to the article. And I don't mean things like that she "uses her kitchen table as a piano" if she hears a song that she likes (a gem of information taken from the Tampa Bay Times reference in the article). --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If redirected, and if she stays alive and moves up the rankings as the oldest living person, the page can always be restored and added to. — JJJ (say hello) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those enamored of living life to its fullest possible extent, myself included, the relavence and importance of Elsie Thompson's life increases in meaning both as she advances in age and others older than her, such as Besse Cooper, pass on. I have been "checking in" on Elsie Thompson on a nearly daily basis since her 112th birthday more than a year ago. I would enjoy learning more about her life. I hope that her article is retained in Wikipedia.Sanpete55man (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)205.197.208.65 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanpete55man (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (article needs definite improvement). The nom stated "Classical case of WP:BLP1E". WP:LOWPROFILE shows how WP:BLP1E is "often misapplied in deletion discussions". First, the article definitely can be beefed up with more details about her. To avoid COI, I work for Gerontology Research Group and I'm only here as a Wikipedia editor with my own personal concern about this AfD. Second, I'm uncertain how many times Elsie Thompson has been interviewed, but she has been interviewed by multiple sources for different birthday events; that is not one event, which meets WP:GNG. The nom did not explain why this fails WP:GNG. I unfortunately don't have them handy and I hope other Wikipedia editors can provide the necessary sources and citations to improve this article. Like a particular tennis event in where one played while 8th ranked in the world, a birthday event in where one is the 8th ranked in the world is *each* considered one separate event. After all, in neither case, the person doesn't maintain the same "status/rank" over time. Just because tennis is covered internationally on a much bigger scale than human longevity, they both still should deserve the same treatment. Like WP:LOWPROFILE points out at the end, the status can change over time and it's a very fair assumption that regarding human longevity events, the older the person continue to live, the profile increases from medium to high (if some considers this as a medium profile right now). "To go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you" shows a lack of understanding in why humans are fascinated to find encyclopedic information about shortest people, tallest people, and oldest people in general. Being the shortest adult in the world "just happens to them", but they still get notable because of that nonetheless. Also, "having an interesting life" is not a requirement to keep a biography article alive. I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that the List of supercentenarians from the United States is already quite long so I also don't support a re-direct there. Instead, a keep of this article with improvements should be the way to go. Of course, if there are no further improvements, then I would concur with the consensus whatever that may be. CalvinTy 20:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Just because tennis is covered internationally on a much bigger scale than human longevity" is exactly why tennis players are more often notable supercentenarians. --Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being one of the oldest living human beings on Earth seems notable, article is sourced, has capability of being expanded NYSMtalk page 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Some of the comments above seem to be based on a misunderstanding of how notability works on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how much of an achievement it is to live to 113, nor does it matter how interesting her life was. All that matters is significant coverage in multiple sources independant of the subject. CalvinTy says these sources exist, but I'm not seeing them. The only sources I can find are the three already in the article, all from the Tampa Bay Times. That's not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No argument from me there, DoctorKubla. I'll see what I personally can find in my files (as I know reliable sources do not need to be online). In the meantime, I do see the issue of insufficient reliable sources here (not yet meeting the criteria of WP:BASIC). CalvinTy 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one of numerous supercentenarian WP:BLP1E cases (being very old is the "one event" not each birthday) not meeting WP:N. I don't even really think it's worth a redirect, because that just encourages people to revert these articles back to an article once they think that no one is looking (see the history of Koto Okubo for example), but a redirect would be better than keeping the article. Canadian Paul 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions/Rant. Let us agree to disagree, Canadian Paul. You decide that "being very old is one event" based on what guideline; I have looked all over and don't see it clearly explained? Analogies should not be used in discussions, but we are human (chuckles), so to make one: "being the shortest adult" or "being the tallest mountain of a continent" is literally one event regardless if they were covered in various years (like birthdays), but they are notable anyway so you are saying they should not have a stand-alone article? Like DoctorKubla says above, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's the depth of the coverage throughout time that matters (and independent of the subject).
I really think this essay says it all about mis-applying WP:BLP1E in AfD's. Supercentenarians usually are noted for their age at first; it is a matter of whether their coverage gets ballooned from there (or not).
You mentioned about a concern about redirect -- solely on a personal observation of past event(s)? "Past performance does not reflect on future events" or whatever that saying goes. If someone has an issue with a revert from a redirect back to a stand-alone article, then it can be brought up in that article's talk page and/or AfD. As for the example you mentioned, Koto Okubo, I haven't gone there but I recognize the person's case, and I realize she is a great example of WP:LOWPROFILE (at near end) in where her status has indeed changed over time from low (past) to high (present). She is now the 3rd oldest validated living person in the world so, naturally, there has been more coverage on this person compared to the past. Saying "once they think that no one is looking" is irrelevant and is a biased opinion anyway. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed my argument by leaving out a key part of the sentence. I said "Delete as one of numerous supercentenarian WP:BLP1E cases [...] not meeting WP:N." Being the shortest adult, the tallest mountain, or even the oldest person might be one event but, as you pointed out, the amount of coverage they receive makes that irrelevant because they will satisfy WP:N (and the fact that a mountain isn't a person makes the policy irrelevant anyways, but whatever). So when you include the bolded part of my sentence, it agrees with everything else you're saying. And I now always include the part getting old rather being the one event rather than individual birthday, because it always comes up in deletion debates, so it saves me the time of having to explain that later. There's no "guideline" that says this, it is my opinion (as is any application of BLP1E), albeit one that is based on a past history of prior deletions/redirects. And this isn't a forum to discuss Okubo, but I'm always happy to share my opinion on your talk page. Just let me know. Canadian Paul 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to List of supercentenarians from the United States, she's the oldest in her state, but not the oldest in the US. She is the oldest person in her state, and she is the oldest white person born in America, however I can understand how some people would want the article merged with the oldest people in America. Longevitydude (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on the sources (which are in-depth) in the article.  The Steve  23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Robert Young, Dina Manfredini just died, if this is true then Elsie Thompson is America's oldest white person. Of course, I'm still understanding of anyone who thinks a redirect would be in order. Longevitydude (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a source http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2012/12/17/manfredini-oldest-person/1775025/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitydude (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is the 2nd oldest living person in the United States out of a population of over 310 million and 7th in the World (List of living supercentenarians). ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 22:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Sources establish notability; yes, it's based on her age, but I suppose that this doesn't merit a delete. dci | TALK 00:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep This page should be added to and improved, but NOT deleted. Information about the supercentenniens add credibility and are of interest to those who follow and do research in geriatrics. User:Thaddeus 05:54, 19 December (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.210.161 (talk)
  • Comment Yeah, this has really become a fascinating article during this AfD. We now know that she was married, is white, and (not even mentioned in the article!) likes "chicken, salmon, coffee and cookies". Oh, and she sings hymns, almost forgot that. Yep, that really is the material we need to build an interesting article for this encyclopedia. No way all that important stuff would fit into a list. And don't forget that supercentenarians are studied by real scientists (never mind that the article on Stephen Coles only shows us some lists of oldest old people in a -rather fringy- journal). Am I being sarcastic? Yes, I'm afraid I am, but I think that many people participating in this discussion here are too much in a mood of seeing this as a race with somebody being the winner as opposed to serious encyclopedia-building. In addition, the only sources that we have up till now are, as WP:N calls it, " minor news stories". Yes, they're in a reliable source (Tampa Bay Times), but these are indeed decidedly minor stories, so whichever way you turn it, this does not meet WP:N. --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell by the video of her 112th birthday that she's white, and besides, the fact that her husband serves in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, a very important and notable fact (that being white, I mean). And her husband being a representative. What with notability being inherited, that's important, too. Probably explains a lot on how she got so old! --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica was "not a serious encyclopedia", what with articles like this one, about some guy whose only claim to fame was his age.  The Steve  19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from a 1911 printed (i.e static) encyclopedia bearing little relation to a modern electronic encyclopedia, and Thomas Parr not being in any way verified, and if he was being the oldest person ever then you could draw a parallel to some who is not only not even in the 100 longest lived people ever but is not even the oldest person in the United States let alone the world. But realistically, her only claim to fame is her age, and that is, as has been repeatedly decided in similar cases, insufficient for a separate article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extreme longevity meets notability criteria. --bender235 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof/link for this statement? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC. Cresix (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NYSM. Seems like this would be notable. Not sure how BLP1E applies here. Living 110+ years does not seem like one event. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not BLP1E, BLP41547E. Ryan Vesey 08:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the death of Mamie Rearden, Elsie Thompson is now the oldest living person in the United States. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. I am keeping my previous Keep vote for this article. Futurist110 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agreed, this discussion is now moot. Canada Jack (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Being the oldest whatever and liking cookies or singing does not make someone notable. Unencyclopedic content that should be listed in a short entry in a list article. I maintain my previous Delete vote. If that makes me the odd man out, so be it. --Randykitty (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 1779Days (talk) Wikipedia has over 4 million articles, and is, and will always be, fast growing. There is no size limit on an encyclopedia. The oldest American is an unequivocal keep. 1779Days (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for the exact same reasons we have kept Onie Ponder, Besse Cooper, Dina Manfredini and Mamie Rearden. Quis separabit? 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - If this is not notable, then delete all the Wikipedia! (Gabinho>:) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep - As oldest person in the US and FL (and for sometime before that as a runner-up) she is notable. If niggly bits of trivia about computer games and movies qualify because they record our culture, the oldest people, who are witnesses to history, certainly do. Pleonic (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Record holders of oldest living American usually have an article. Cresix (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elsie_Thompson&oldid=1142497650"