Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flossie Page

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 no consensus. Mr.Z-man 06:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flossie Page[edit]

Flossie Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability not established per WP:BIO, so I merged it to List of American supercentenarians. Merger reverted twice, so I suggest deletion: this short snippet belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is established as the oldest person ever in Kansas. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: If being a supercentenarian is no longer notable in and of itself then it should not exist as a category and any such names either listified or removed -- the same for centenarians, who are less notable even. Soxthecat (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HALT -- this article and another were unmerged from an article that passed notability, and were tagged for AFD as revenge from an administrator (BHG) for not merging them back in the vein of beauracracy run amuck. Read more at [[1]]. Guroadrunner (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Not so. The article did not establish notability, so I merged it as an alternative to deletion. I nominated it for deletion because when unmerged it still failed to establish notability. There is no revenge involved; if the article passes WP:BIO, it should stay, but otherwise it should be merged or deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retraction. It appears that the articles are being duplicated with a fork from Kitia, hence why the AFD for these articles that were separated from the main list they belong in. Recommend merge. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BrownHairedGirl Bad Faith Nomination. [1] [2] [3] [4] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you learn some basic manners, and not immediately leap to allegations of bad faith when you find references which both the article's creators and I had missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very well mannered, but I am not going to ignore a bad faith nomination to retaliate against your merger proposal, and I am not going to ignore sloppy research. You said you did research, and didn't find any references, but all I did was type the name into Google and found many reliable ones. When you nominate something for deletion, as opposed to using a reference tag, you are certifying that you thoroughly searched, and found no reliable sources. This wasn't the case. I can only think that you did it in haste or anger or both. I get angry and frustrated too, it is a part of being human. I read the comment you left:

"I have objection at all to unmerger if notability has been established per WP:BIO, but if you persist in simply reverting the merger without improving the articles to meet WP:BIO, then I will simply save myself the time and nominate them at AfD. ... Your call. ... It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed."

That, I believe, is a bad faith nomination. I am not against the merger of the smaller articles, but everyone has to perform some due diligence before they nominate, and it wasn't done here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • As you ought to know, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are ill-mannered. The situation is simple: I could quite legitimately have simply started by nominating these article for AfD as notability-not-established, without going to all the trouble of trying to merge them and preserve the info when it did not meet the criteria for a standalone article. The conclusion I drew yesterday was that this is a stupid waste of my time, because the very fact of having put a lot of effort into trying to achieve a compromise solution leads some ill-mannered people to assume bad faith when that route is blocked without notability being demonstrated, so my days of mergeism are over. In future, if an article doesn't meet notability standards, I'll take it directly to AfD and save myself the abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as per WP:BIO also poorly sourced. - Galloglass 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like another factoid, as well as a re-write of a website (such as an obituary or birthday). I'm starting to feel webpages are not worthy of having their own Wikipedia article. Neal (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Rosalia Women Turns 110". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Flossie Page says 110 years of life will make you wise, content . . . and tired. She should know. She celebrated her 110th birthday Thursday at her Rosalia home. "I don't want to live a long while longer," she said Friday. "I think I've lived my life." She said she is glad she has lived so many years, but she would not recommend it to others. "Not unless you can help other people who
  2. ^ "Flossie Page". Associated Press. February 25, 2006. Flossie page, the oldest Kansan on record, died Wednesday of pneumonia, according to granddaughter Becky Humig. She was 112 years, eight months and ...
  3. ^ "Oldest Kansan Dies at 112". Wichita Eagle. February 24, 2006. Flossie Page didn't drink liquor or soda pop. She didn't smoke or cuss. But she did drink strong coffee and wasn't above killing an occasional snake in her garden with a hoe. Mrs. Page died Wednesday morning from pneumonia at the Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospital in El Dorado. She had lived 112 years, eight months and 10 days, making her the oldest Kansan on record, according to the Gerontology Research Group, which research es the lifestyles of ...
  4. ^ "Flossie Page". KAKE. May 9, 2004. Retrieved 2007-12-09. We don't often get a chance to meet history. But here she is. Flossie Page who next month will celebrate 111 years of life.
  • OK, let's look at these refs:
    • The Wichita Eagle story is a 461-word article whose full text is not visible, so we can't meaningfully assess it. It may go some way to demonstrating notability, but it's hard to judge from the first para.
    • You provide no links for the second and third refs, so they can't be assessed at all. Woukd you acre to reveal the source?
    • The 480-word kake.com article was already referenced when I made the nomination.
    • So all we have by way of verifiable refs is two articles of less than 500 words in local papers. I'd say notability not yet proven. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When the Wichita Eagle with a circulation of >90K runs a story on you, and the Associated Press writes a story on you, and a TV station carries a story on you, you are notable by Wikipedia standards. The number of words don't matter in notability. And, as always you can find the stories the same way I did, even without a link, by using Google. As you know Google links are not always permanent, but are sometimes cached. Sadly most of the newspaper information in the US is not archived online. Here in NJ the newspaper online archive is just for two weeks, and Google licenses the AP feed, but sadly I haven't seen much up yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The number of words do matter in notability: WP:BIO explicitly says that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The word "trivial" doesn't imply a minimal number of words that need to be used. A trivial mention would be say, a telephone directory, or a list or people that attended a party. There is no minimum. There just needs to be sufficient information in all the combined sources, so that nothing in the article is "original research". And of course a telephone directory can be used for verifiability (that say they lived in Texas), just not for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Richard, do please read WP:BIO, particularly the note at WP:BIO#endnote_3. Non-triviality is not simply a binary question of not being a directory entry, it's a matter of how far removed from a directory entry the ref in question is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats exactly what I wrote you, reread above. Why are you repeating it to me? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not what you wrote. Do please read WP:BIO, particularly the note at WP:BIO#endnote_3 ... all of it. It's not that long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 07:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, per WP:BIO, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Your proposal of assembling snippets does not satisfy that test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, thanks again, Richard Norton! Neal (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete The local press runs stories on dozens of non-notable persons every day, and the oldest/heaviest/tallest persons in Kansas/Ohio/Labrador are amongst these non-notable persons. Preserving the snippet in a list is an excellent compromise. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2007 (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/Flossie_Page&oldid=1137852781"