Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Verona Johnston

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 Redirect (NAC) There is consensus here that a stand-alone article is not necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Verona Johnston[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources - all I could find were obituaries and a trivial mention from Drake University, which do not satisfy the requirement. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect and Marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. oppose to delete because this article is not without source and it has the same title that "the oldest living American" with her, such as Mary Christian and Elena Slough's biography has been included in List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. Therefore, rather than delete, it is better to her information move there. In addition, Emma Verona Johnston (August 1890 – December 2004, 114 years and 117 days old) is older than Mary Christian (June 1889 – April 2003, 113 years and 312 days old) and Elena Slough (July 1889 – October 2003, 114 years and 93 days old), therefore more notable.--Inception2010 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Inception, notability for Wikipedia purposes has nothing to do with age under the general notability guidelines, and everything to do with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. In the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, Methuselah would not be notable. Claims of oldest person in England, Canada, California, Japan, etc., are meaningless for notability purposes in the absence of significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per NOPAGE. Nothing worth reporting in a standalone article. EEng (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Record holders of oldest living American usually have an article.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Was featured more times in the media than the nominator could find:

Another Ohioan noted for longevity (Lima News, 20 May 2004)

Oldest American still calls Iowa her home (Cedar Rapids Gazette, 11 July 2004)

Furthermore, she was the oldest living American and one of the oldest people in the world at the time of her death. Notable enough for her own article on Wikipedia. 930310 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You haven't answered the WP:NOPAGE argument i.e. that even accepting (for the sake of argument) that the subject is notable, there's insufficient worthwhile stuff to say about him or her to justify a standalone article, and/or that what little is known about the subject is better presented in the context of a larger article or list. EEng (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been sufficient media coverage on the oldest living American at her time. Moreover, the authenticity of her remarkable age has been scientifically confirmed: GRG table A - Verified Supercentenarians (Listed Chronologically By Birth Date)White Eaglet (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

There's nothing in the WP:GNG that says "having your age verified by the GRG makes you notable". A GRG table does nothing to establish notability because they are simply names in a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring it; I'm saying that this article provides the significant coverage that exceeds that standard. Notice that the overwhelming consensus here is for retention of this article. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus among SPAs, you mean (plus you, of course). "Coverage" alone doesn't answer NOPAGE, because the NOPAGE question is what's worth actually saying about the subject, regardless of how much information is in the coverage. (Much of this longevity coverage is fluff such as "She liked to have lunch with visitors.") So yes, you're indeed ignoring the NOPAGE argument. This has been explained to you a couple of times, and not just by me. [1]. EEng (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, it's been explained to you multiple times that the article here provides appropriate significant coverage, the ultimate answer to NOPAGE. The problem here and elsewhere is that you don't make a case, you just repeat the same rejected nonsense all over again that has already been considered and rejected by consensus here. (Cue for EEng to repeat the same BS arguments all over again, using lots of abbreviations and other demands). Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's address the article, not the editor, nor on what we imagine they may or may not choose to do in the future. Jacona (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JaconaFrere. Alansohn, the question NOPAGE asks is whether the subject is best presented in a standalone article versus along with other subjects in a list or similar article. The sheer quantity of information in the article has little to do with that, because most of it is fluff that shouldn't be there anyway. EEng (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to our article on Superceturians There are estimated to be 300–450 living supercentenarians[3] in the world, though only 51 verified cases are known." Therefore any claim to be the oldest anywhere is doubious at best as there is likely to be about 400 other potential recordholders. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, GRG "pending" cases have been deleted off Wikipedia, so in reality, more than 51 are known. Secondly, most of the 51 people are actually aged 112+... so the proportion of people 112+ is greater than 10%. Thirdly, even if there's some doubt as to whether someone is truly the "oldest person from place X", what can be known is the oldest DOCUMENTED person from place X. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about who's the oldest documented person. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States#People, per WP:NOPAGE and WP:BLP1E.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have an articles that deals with all these. Extremely trivial. Just because sources prove someone existed doesn't mean they deserve their own article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:15, 27 November 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.