Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugénie Blanchard

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 to List of French supercentenarians. Tone 22:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugénie Blanchard

[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)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 00:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it very disappointing that more people are supporting the idea that being notable for longevity alone doesn't mean they get a Wikipedia article. Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: all the information relevant to this person's age (the only notable thing about her) is already included in various lists of oldest people. We can simply redirect her name to List of French supercentenarians. If any biographical trivia is deemed useful, she can have a short section there. — JFG ^talk 05:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any policy/guideline based reasoning for keeping this article? Because nowhere in any policy or guideline does it say "longevity makes you notable". And the fact that most of these WP:PERMASTUBs cannot be expanded beyond "born, married, had kids, worked, died" means they should be on lists. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with some fluff about her nickname added in. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Per nom. The sources strain to pad this article with fluffy trivia (3rd oldest X, oldest Y, successor/predecessor) and there's an entire paragraph about a nickname she had. Other than that the sources and article tell us she was born, became a nun, became oldest in country/world, died. Nothing that isn't easily handled in a list somewhere. Three of the five sources no longer work and the remaining two are both local news articles so fails WP:GNG. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete longevity does not make one notable. Fails WP:GNG, coverage is routine and WP:NOTNEWS. (A "WP:BDP1E"?) SportingFlyer talk 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well it actually does. They are celebrated, sometimes venerated and studied to a certain extant, typically their diet to emulate them. They need some details, as they are so far outside the normal spectrum of living, possibly a list page. scope_creep (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's already in a list. She's not notable enough for her own article. SportingFlyer talk 23:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect because alternatives to deletion are preferred. In this case a redirect could serve readers. The problem is that there are several plausible options to redirect, List of the verified oldest women, List of French supercentenarians, List of the verified oldest people, List of former Roman Catholic nuns. Keep as a result to avoid confusion. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. List of former Roman Catholic nuns is for notable nuns; this subject is not. List of verified oldest people and List of the verified oldest women are giant and nonspecific. The redirect would be to List of French supercentenarians. E Eng 23:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second and third this astute remark: must target the fries! — JFG ^talk 02:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to list per NOPAGE. E Eng 23:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World's Oldest Living Person is notable. Into the Rift (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longevity AfD is complete without someone who hasn't edited in 4 years showing up to inject this completely baseless statement. E Eng 16:55, 24 October 2018 (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.