Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Apilado

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Apilado

[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)

This person is supposedly a supercentenarian. However, her age is unvalidated. This person was listed at List of living centenarians, which I took out because no reliable sources have indicated she is still alive. Not many reliable sources indicate that she is notable. Interstellarity (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, her age being unvalidated is irrelevant to her notability. Question marks regarding a person's age is not a criterion for deletion, nor is the fact that her living status is uncertain. That can be seen as a strawman from the nominator. Second of all, there are over 10 citations in the article, including several university-related pages. Source #1 and #6, for instance, establish her as a race-relations activist. Source #7 gives her independent coverage long before she reached old age. Her writings as a magazine writer is cited (#10) in a University thesis in a topic related to African-Americans. Yes, it would be great if the article could be improved additionally (it's only existed for a little over a year), but I honestly believe that she meets the minimum criteria for having an article. The weight of RS is more important than the sheer amount. I suppose the nominator might find the topic of race-relations in the United States unimportant, but other don't. OscarL 16:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The notability of an individual is not determined by whether or not an official body has recognised their age. Apilado has a page on The History Makers, which profiles her and features an interview from 2004. The History Makers project was compiled to document notable individuals from African-American backgrounds who excelled in their respective fields. That aside, a quick Google reveals that she has received a large amount of coverage for matters unrelated to her age, from a variety of sources. Finally, her Wikipedia profile is well sourced, demonstrates sufficient notability and passes all requirements for a standalone article. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the point of this article is that Apilado is notable as a writer/editor, I would recommend emphasizing that point rather than focusing on her being a supercentenarian. Supposedly, the subject is still alive at 112 years old, but there don't seem to be any sources cited referencing her still being alive published since 2009. But if her claim to notability is based on being a writer/editor, then we don't have to worry about whether she was really born in 1908. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2021 (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.