Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Byrne (centenarian)

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 DELETE. Unfortunately, given that this is a unique situation without it's own criteria for notability, multiple rules must be amalgamated and interpreted in spirit, rather than by the letter. As some users have pointed out, this article does not technically meet the criteria for WP:ONEEVENT, as we are not dealing with an event as such, but more a series of events (this woman's life) leading to a single fact which they argue denotes notability. However it appears quite clear that this single fact is not notable enough to stand on its own as a criteria for notability. The closest existing rule to this assertion can be found here (A being in this case the subject and well-known person B being the President or age-group respectively)

The second consideration for deletion is notability. Though the subject obviously meets WP:GNG they similarly obviously fail the general criteria for biographies, specifically criteria two as there is no evidence that an enduring record (significant enough for notability as seen in criteria one) will be made of this woman simply because of her age.

Given the difficulty of interpreting these rules in unique cases such as this it may be pertinent to create a subsection of WP:Notability to deal with the wider issues at play here. However, working within the existing framework, this appears to be the logical conclusion of this AfD. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Byrne (centenarian)[edit]

Mary Byrne (centenarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person had zero notability during her lifetime. Simply being the oldest person of a particular nation at the point of death does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. PROD was declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:GNG Snappy (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are plenty of other centenarians who have pages on here as well and the only thing they were really known for was being old so why delete this page ? Entity of the Void (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing about being a centenarian is that unless they've accomplished something notable, they're not considered to be notable enough to have their own article. That other articles exist doesn't really mean anything, as it might just mean that the article has yet to be brought up for AfD or otherwise redirected to another article. Now when the centenarian is dead, that's where it gets tricky. If they didn't reach the status of supercentenarian (110+), then the redirect and article should be deleted as far as I can tell per the rules here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She was covered in widely read publications. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Question - covered how? Do you mean her death was covered or something she did during her life? As has been pointed out, while living to over 100 is an achievement, it alone does not make the person notable. Snappy (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does WP:ONEEVENT not apply here? The subject seems to only be notable for one event - dying at 108 years old. The coverage seems to only cover this one even. I don't see how that establishes notability per WP:GNG. I could be convinced that this case is fundamentally different but it seems to me that picking an arbitrary number (at what age does one become notable?) isn't something that Wikipedia has ever done but if we're covering what humans consider notable, represented by significant and independent coverage from reliable sources, there has been some coverage. Still, that coverage verges on non-significant as it only covers her age. As an example, I've seen longer obituaries but that doesn't make a person notable, even though it can be covered in several reliable and independent sources. What's the difference? Again, it seems to be an arbitrary number. At least the references used in the article aren't in the obituary section. That at least leaves the door open for an argument. OlYeller21Talktome 05:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oldest_people There are 196 countries in the world.[1] Are we going to create articles about the oldest person from each one? On the other hand, informative and verifiable content should be kept (somewhere) wherever possible. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered by significant news sources. Not saying the oldest ethnic person of each country is notable, however. RoyalMate1 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how is this person notable with only two news articles that were created in the wake of their death? OlYeller21Talktome 05:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As has been pointed out, there are 196 countries in the world, the oldest person in each country probably changes every few years, if we treat anyone who was the oldest person in any country even in the past few decades as inherently notable then we have several hundred articles on our hands. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. There are some things might be inherently notable, e.g. making it to supercenenarian. PatGallacher (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:ONEEVENT as mentioned above and, to a lesser extent, WP:N in regards to the level of sourcing. Canadian Paul 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was Ireland's oldest person. Longevitydude (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What notability guideline does that satisfy? OlYeller21Talktome 20:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She was honored by the office of President of Ireland Michael D. Higgins as the country's oldest citizen. Longevitydude (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just merged in information from an AFC submission, and I added four more independent sources, including two unique ones from the ones that were already there. Thus, she has been covered by many news sites, and there are probably more out there if anyone decided to put a concentrated effort into this. I would have closed this as a non-administrator in light of those developments, but I'll let someone else figure it out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good thing you didn't close the discussion as a !voter and as you, at the very least, haven't changed my mind. I'm still seeing that just being the oldest person in a county doesn't satisfy any inclusion guideline. I think others here feel the same. So far, you're the only keep !voter that hasn't failed to answer the questions of others. OlYeller21Talktome 01:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Country, not just her county. Longevitydude (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant country but missed the 'r'. As several others have stated, where is the line drawn? There are 196 countries and based on this loose, non-consensus, inclusion guideline, are we to include 196 people at any given time. Each time one of those 196 die, we add another? Why not go by state/province? What about continent? By country is an arbitrary distinction that no one seems to have been able to justify yet - just agree with. It seems much more logical to keep a list of Oldest people, if we consider being very old, notable. OlYeller21Talktome 16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I'd say state/province is a good line to draw, though I'm someone who thinks every city and town is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, I still support delete in light of what has been since added to the article, for the reasons I enunciated before and for the reasons others have enunciated in support of delete. Also, I would STRONGLY object to anybody other than an uninvolved administrator attempting to close this. This is a contested AfD and a non-admin close is impermissible. Safiel (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per WP:N, WP:ONEVENT and, I suspect, WP:ORPHAN. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    She was noted not just for the title, but also for her birthdays, and those sources prove it. It's not an Orphan either, their are other articles about Irish centenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only seen references that she was the oldest person and then died as the oldest person. To me, oldest person = one event. I haven't seen any coverage otherwise. Have you? OlYeller21Talktome 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, her article has sources covering her 107th and 108th birthdays. Longevitydude (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Only articles that cover her being the oldest person. Her actual age is as relevant as her name. Again, do you have any articles that cover her age before she was the oldest person in the country? OlYeller21Talktome 23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats irrelevant because the birthday and the gaining of a new title are two separate events. Longevitydude (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I might agree with you if there was coverage that was gained for a reason other than her being the oldest person in the country. That's what I keep asking you to provide - significant coverage from an independent and reliable source that was created for a reason other than because she was the oldest person in the country. OlYeller21Talktome 23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, her 108th birthday was covered. Longevitydude (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Thank you. You've proven my point that the only coverage of her was for the one event I've mentioned numerous times. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're being dense on purpose to conflate the conversation to make it appear that anyone with a keep !vote has an actual reason to ignore WP:ONEEVENT. Unless you have something new to bring up, I will no longer be responding to you. OlYeller21Talktome 06:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that rather repetitive response, but it is you who ignores the fact that the birthday and title are separate events, her 108th birthday probably would've been mentioned title or no title. I'm sure their were originally articles for her 107 and maybe earlier birthdays, but there is this thing called a "deal link" that I'm sure those articles unfortunately became. Longevitydude (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only birthday coverage was due to one event - her being the oldest person. You keep mentioning other articles that "probably" or "would have" existed but can't provide any. Until you can prove that any article existed as coverage of her outside of the one event (again, her being the oldest person), you're talking in circles about things you apparently can't prove. OlYeller21Talktome 16:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why I've been arguing with someone who states on their userpage that they, "sympathize with other members whose articles got afds". I think you're ignoring WP:ONEEVENT because you feel bad about this article being deleted and are attempting to subvert any legitimate conversation by saying that articles should have and would have existed, all while being completely unable to provide an article that covered this subject outside of the one event. Hopefully you have nothing to do with SPAs showing up to !vote. OlYeller21Talktome 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recognised by the President's office (how much more official can you get on these matters?) and has long-standing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, dating from before her death as well, thereby satisfying SIGCOV/GNG, and, this being an encyclopedia, so of course it would stock "oldest people". --86.40.107.199 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why ignore WP:ONEEVENT? OlYeller21Talktome 18:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other stuff? How does that apply either? You aren't making any sense. I trust that that the reviewing administrator will have the good sense to completely discount your contributions. You've certainly done your level best to discount mine. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should really read what I linked. It basically mentions that citing that other situations exist on Wikipedia is not a good argument. Situations are independent here and precedents don't really hold any value. OlYeller21Talktome 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have reported Longevitydude at ANI. It appears that there is a long list of concerns regarding off-Wiki canvassing and special attention paid to !voting Keep on AfDs related to people of age. The list includes SPIs, ArbCom hearings, ANI reports of altering comments, and being banned from websites dedicated to studying old people (I couldn't think of a better way to describe that website). The SPA anon above was listed there as well. OlYeller21Talktome 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that me you are attacking in that derogatory manner? This is the first I've heard about being listed on any website dedicated to studying old people. By the way, if that is me you are calling a "SPA", you should really take a closer look at my contributions. The only reason I've had to make more than one edit here is to respond to your insidious remarks. I have nothing to do with "Longevitydude" and I take umbrage at your shocking attitude, your appalling lack of good faith, and your attempts to discredit anyone who holds an opposing opinion. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are an WP:SPA because the first edit you ever edit you ever made had to do with age and the second was to this AFD. That's not exactly the editing habits of someone who's new to WP or just stumbled upon this AfD (somehow) and started citing guidelines. If you normally edit from another account or IP, noting that on your userpage would be beneficial to you. Regardless, this really isn't the place to make such comments. You should be doing that at the ANI thread. I have only brought up an issue. I haven't accused you of any wrong doing but try to see it from the perspective of others. It appears as though you came out of the woodwork just to !vote here. You can easily correct this issue via the method I mentioned above and commenting at ANI. There's really no reason to be offended. If there's nothing fishy going on, you can easily dispel any confusion. OlYeller21Talktome 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have some nerve. The only thing fishy going on is your attempt to disrupt the contributions of anyone who disagrees with your POV. It's listed here. Why shouldn't I "stumble upon" it any more than anyone else here has stumbled upon it? Who said anything about having to be new? I contribute now and again, I have no control over what number I appear as, or when I appear as it, and I don't mess around with user pages - they're nothing but decorations and a waste of time. This is supposed to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - that's some joke. Make one edit and there's somebody there just waiting to report you for breaking some rule or another. You can take it or leave it, I couldn't care less, I have better things to be doing. A SPA? "Limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose"? Some SPA I am - football, handball, reading, pollution, a plumber, a landslide, war, a dead lady. You're beyond contempt. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others can draw their own conclusion. You were an SPA when you came here and your second edit was to an AfD - not something new editors stumble upon. You could have avoided all of this by just mentioning what other IPs you've edited under but for some reason, you choose not to. There's no need to get so upset about it. Would you not think something was fishy if you were in my shoes? OlYeller21Talktome 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and others plus WP:N and WP:ONEVENT. BTW the President of Ireland recognises all Irish centenarians, So what is notable about that? ww2censor (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:, a WP:ONEVENT. Being the oldest person in the world is probably notable, but being oldest in a single country, not really. Being noted by the president isn't a big deal either, in the US the president will send a greeting to anyone over 80 (70 for veterans), plus various other random events such as bar mitzvahs. Front page news it ain't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to explain old yeller's misrepresentation of one event.

"One event" was intended that, if someone were the witness to an event or a participant in one event, then they are not notable just because they did an interview for TV In the case of someone notable for age, the person is notable due to their age, not just an "event". Being recognized as Ireland's oldest person at 107 and dying at 108 are two events, anyway. Old Yeller21 is profoundly misstating and misusing WP: ONE EVENT. Basically, what he is saying is that someone can NEVER be notable for age, and only notable if they were famous before old age. But the Jeanne Calment article proves that is not true. So, use Jeanne Calment as an example that, firstly, someone CAN be noted for age only, and secondly, since Calment's age coverage lasted far more than one event, ONE EVENT doesn't apply. Longevitydude (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heres perhaps a better clarification as my previous post

" If people read the WP: One Event guidelines, someone who is notable only due to their link in one event (for example, a witness gives an interview to a fire; the man who filmed the Rodney King beating, etc) is not usually notable, unless the person was involved in planning the event beforehand. For example, assassins such as Garilov Princip may be notable because they planned out the event beforehand." When it comes to "old age," old age is NOT an event. Celebrating a 114th birthday is an event. Becoming the WOP is an event. Being 114 is NOT an event. There is a difference. Longevitydude (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, several people disagree with you. Put simply, she wasn't the world's oldest person as you mention. That's very different. She was only covered for one thing, twice, and something that several people here don't feel establishes notability. OlYeller21Talktome 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously several people agree with me. Put simply, I didn't say she was the world's oldest person, I was giving an example. Several people here do feel that establishes notability. Longevitydude (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - known only for being the oldest person in Ireland at the time of her death, there seems to be little biographical information to sustain an article (apart from her dietary habits) despite her death being covered in several news sources. Sionk (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like some, but I'm not asure if there is, any consensus about whether being the oldest person living in one's country is sufficient -- by itself -- for notability. Can we have some clarification? Bearian (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a discussion that's taken place before, considering peoples' comments above about supercentenarians. Maybe someone needs to create a "List of oldest people in Ireland". I see the previous two incumbents died in quick succession. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to create new policy, I'd say it logically follows along the lines of our general consensus for world record holders, since they're essentially local record holders. Broadly speaking, while some record holders are notable for other things (like athletics & music records), and a few have spun world records into general notability (the fattest twins became wrestlers), but there's loads of precedent that simply holding a record and being in the Guinness Book isn't notable on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:43, 14 January 2013 (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/Mary_Byrne_(centenarian)&oldid=1138059904"