Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josefa Salas Mateo
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 Redirect to Oldest people, insufficient reliable sources to establish notability for a seperate article but ok for in list. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Josefa Salas Mateo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Stub article on very old person, with an assertion of notability (having been world's oldest person for a while), but no sign of any substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Mateo is already listed in Oldest people and in Oldest validated person by year of birth; this is quite sufficient unless substantial coverage is available in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO, and my google searches found none. I suggest deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The guiness book of record claim is very strong. It would be a reliable source. If anyone can reproduce that, I think notability is sufficiently established. If not, and no other reliable soures turn up, delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to doubt that the Guinness Book of Records claim is genuine, and it can be easily verified in any library. However, such entries are not substantial, and do not satisfy WP:BIO's requirement of substantial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The guiness book of records being reliable, but trivial coverage, and several so-so sources on the internet from not so established sources giving some coverage is just on the better side of notable for me. weakest keep Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these "so-so sources" come anywhere near meeting WP:RS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The guiness book of records being reliable, but trivial coverage, and several so-so sources on the internet from not so established sources giving some coverage is just on the better side of notable for me. weakest keep Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to doubt that the Guinness Book of Records claim is genuine, and it can be easily verified in any library. However, such entries are not substantial, and do not satisfy WP:BIO's requirement of substantial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Martijn Hoekstra, this factoid is good enough for me. Neal (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Oldest people. With no more than trivial coverage in secondary sources, a separate article is not necessary. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too could live with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we're talking about "I could live with that," I guess it's about weighing 2 arguments, people who are for deletion: "I could not live with the fact that this factoid has it's own article," and, people who are against deletion: "I could not live with the fact that this factoid is on a table and doesn't have it's own article." Well for me - I could sleep well at night regardless of whether an article exists or not. But I guess the damage done to me over the existence of an article is smaller than my will to delete an article that does exist. Otherwise, I don't think it's about "I too could live with that." If this article really is a factoid and fails all other policies, it doesn't need an AfD. Neal (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I too could live with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Oldest people. With no more than trivial coverage in secondary sources, a separate article is not necessary. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. All the succession boxes and are excessive. Edison (talk) 17:32, 12 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.