Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice Sanborn (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. I've read thsi whole thing through, twice, and cannot see a clear consensus in either direction. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Sanborn[edit]

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

Article is not clear but it seems like Sanborn was merely a pretender to the claim of being the oldest living person (although that cites an inaccessible forum so it's not clear either). It seems like Maria Gomes Valentim was actually considered the oldest person during this time retroactively so all these citations about her being the oldest woman when she died (WP:ROUTINE obituary coverage) are not evidence of notability if they are based on a false premise. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Last discussion was recent enough and as stated before she's clearly notable if you interpret WP:BIO in favor of supercentarians. 166.176.58.103 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.176.58.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The last discussion was in 2009 and if you interpret anything anyway anything is notable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She was thought to be world's oldest person is itself have notability. revocation of the record will not be a lose of notability. user:Ricky81682 is issued deletion discussions of a large amount, but some of them is indisputably abnormal. user:Ricky81682's personal reason that hate oldest people article is not the correct reason to delete this page.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So everyone on longevity claims who was thought to be the world's oldest person is notable enough for their own article? That's an interest interpretation. And I'm not getting into my personal issues but I see this as no different than the old articles on every fictional character which eventually merged into lists unless they are separately notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The two were the first to build a concrete bottom pool in Cherokee County at that time". Definitely the kind of detail our readers want and need. NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we need a succession box for that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep under notability. Quis separabit? 16:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So she's notable because she's notable? Great argument! EEng (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine obituary coverage are not evidence of notability.--TM 11:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified as being one year younger than claimed and was the oldest living American at the time of her death. Several sources provide sufficent coverage for notability. If even more sources are desired, please see the following:

Eunice Sanborn turns 111 (Jacksonville Progress, 21 July 2006)

Sanborn could be added to list of world’s oldest people (Jacksonville Progress, 1 August 2006)

At 111, Jacksonville woman is now the oldest Texan (Chron, 24 March 2008)

Happy Birthday, Mrs. Sanborn (Jacksonville Progress, 20 July 2010)

Texas Woman Celebrates 114th Birthday (ABC News, 21 July 2010)

930310 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What's need is not "more" sources, but nontrivial, nonroutine sources. The first piece on your list, for example, reads in its entirety:

Eunice Sanborn of Jacksonville celebrated her 111th birthday Thursday with a party at her home thrown by friends, family, Sunday school members and caretakers. Ms. Sanborn’s husband once owned The Lookout amusement park, which was also home to the first concrete-bottom pool in Cherokee County.

This is, to say the least, routine trivial coverage. You need to counter the NOPAGE argument by showing us what, actually, an article on this subject would say about her. No one's going to plow through all the repetitive nothingness to find it for you. EEng (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did your birthday get an article in the newspaper? Thought not. How is that in any way "routine"? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous nomination for deletion (from 2009) ended with no consensus and the article has been kept. It has been improved ever since. Additional sources have been found during this discussion as well. I can see no sufficient reason for deletion.White Eaglet (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete; it's nice that she lived an apparently fulfilling life and that she staved off the inevitable for an unusually long time, and oddly enough none of the preceding seems to show up as criteria for notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not whether or not you like it. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep pretending that the only issue here is notability. Even granting that she's notable, that still leaves the question of whether the reader is best served by a standalone article, or by an entry in a list. EEng (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that she was the "oldest verified living person in the world at the time of her death" is backed by appropriate strong reliable and verifiable sources that are unquestionably about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think this is WP:A7. Notability isn't about verifiability of "a claim" (otherwise there's be no such thing as BP1E); it's about SIGCOV. And then there's NOPAGE, which you haven't addressed. EEng (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article that I'm reading is at or near the median in size of our five million articles. It meets any standard, acronym or abbreviation that you or I can come up with regarding significant coverage. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, brother. The question isn't what's in the article, but what should be in the article. Any subject can be puffed up with meaningless fluff. If you want to have the last word now, please be my guest. EEng (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really? The 2nd oldest person in the world isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 4 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep The sources provided by 930310 (talk · contribs) and in the article clearly demonstrate that the subject has received sustained significant coverage from 2006–2011. Eunice Sanborn clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Regarding the WP:NOPAGE arguments, I refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tillman. WP:NOPAGE says:
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.
I believe that in the case of Eunice Sanborn "understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page". There is extensive information about Eunice Sanborn in the sources provided. The article can be further expanded based on the sources linked above, and it would be WP:UNDUE weight to merge her article to a page like List of supercentenarians from the United States.
WP:NOPAGE further states:
Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable
"Delete" proponents have failed to explain how the topic would become more "understandable" if Eunice Sanborn's article is merged to the supercentarian list.
From http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/At-111-Jacksonville-woman-is-now-the-oldest-Texan-1547206.php:
Census records show that Sanborn was born July 20, 1896, in Lake Charles, La., though she claims she was born a year earlier, French said.
She married her first of three husbands when she about 18 years old. The couple soon moved to north-central Texas, but the man died in a traffic accident in about 1927. She remarried in the early 1930s and in 1937 she and her second husband built and operated Love's Lookout, a recreational facility just north of Jacksonville.
The facility included an Olympic-sized, lighted swimming pool, miniature golf course, dance hall and archery range. The family closed it in the late 1970s.
She was left a widow again in the early 1940s. She married a third time, but her husband died in 1979. She also outlived her only child, a daughter, French said.
This biographical information is encyclopedic and can be used to further expand the article.
Cunard (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So she had three husbands and her second business owned and operated a recreational facility? Is everyone who did that deserve a separate, stand alone article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. Of course, one way to try and get your way is to just remove most content and sources from the article, like EEng did here. Coverage in reliable sources suggests she passed WP:GNG. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Again, you keep pretending that notability is the only test for having a standalone article. I removed the worthless fluff from the article, thus demonstrating how little there is to say about her, which in turn is why NOPAGE is so compelling here (and in so many longevity "articles"). EEng (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOPAGE big time. Nothing encyclopedic in this article, not even some amusing trivia. Instead of repeated these tiresome arguments all the time, we should perhaps have a centralized discussion about all these so-called longevity "biographies", so that we can get this dealt with once and for all. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only thing that she has done is outlive a great number of people. Is that itself notable? I would say no... that said why delete this article? It can help others. Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 23 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.