Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusta Holtz

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. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Holtz[edit]

Augusta Holtz (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)

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines, which require widespread non-trivial coverage. Since she was only "verified" nearly three decades after her death, it's not surprising that she received little coverage, much of which came at her death, and thus any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She was the first person verified to have reached the age of 115, so that adds to her notability. The fact she was world's oldest living person helps, too. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Not according to Wikipedia's criterion for notability. Canadian Paul 17:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathew Beard is notable for reaching 114, so why wouldn't Holtz be notable for reaching 115? DN-boards1 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    In this case, it's more RELATEDSTUFFEXISTS. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, was she the first or the second person to reach 115? If she was the second person to reach 115, does that still make her notable to you? It doesn't matter as I removed that since there's no citation for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    She was the first person to reach 115 who was known at the time, the first person to actually reach it was not even uncovered until this year, said person died in 1977. Holtz is also the 32nd oldest person who ever lived. She's in the top 50 oldest people ever. DN-boards1 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article contains trivial information.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Holtz is the VERY FIRST person documented to have EVER reached the age of 115. Don't you think such an achievement makes her notable? Being the first person to survive to be 115? DN-boards1 (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This issue of notability is not for us to decide. It is a matter of what others say, as demonstrated in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That is Wiki's policy. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another RS, her obituary: [1] DN-boards1 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So everybody with an obituary is notable? Well, that is certainly an inclusive definition of "notable"! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was providing an obituary as an RS. Notice that it mentions she was the oldest living human. In addition, the forum "The 110 Club" is affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, an organization that is the primary longevity investigator. Most longevity claims are verified or debunked by them, and they and Guinness are our primary sources. The 110 Club is a forum they use to verify or debunk stuff, there's a thread discussing Augusta Holtz in there. DN-boards1 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The result and implications of the Koto Okubo AfD are being misrepresented and used as a tool to unfairly override long-standing consensus. The general consensus for a long time seems to be that World's oldest people and World's oldest men titleholders are notable enough for a standalone article. Koto Okubo's case was different and unusual, however: firstly, she was never the world's oldest person (only the world's oldest woman). Secondly, she received an unusually small attention from the media, hence there really wasn't much to write a biography about. For Augusta Holtz, this is a bit different. There are enough reliably sourced details and more sources may exist in the archives (remember she died 30 years ago). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:BURDEN of proof is on you. Can you provide these sources? Because I think keeping an article on the basis that sources "might" exist is a very poor argument. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can, and I've added some them to the article. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] All from when she was alive. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. All useful information about her (name, age country, oldest living person) is all conveniently located in Oldest people and other longevity articles. Unless new sources appear that demonstrate notability, she belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are three "sources" cited on the page. Two are GRG pages that have already been rejected as WP:Reliable sources on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and the third is a single Associated Press obit. Isambard has it exactly right: "As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject...." The notion that "record-holders" are inherently notable is not in any way a policy-based assertion. Indeed that notion is precisely the problem in this suite of articles.David in DC (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's not correct to say that the GRG pages have been rejected as WP:Reliable sources. To my knowledge, only Table EE was deemed unreliable.
2. I've added more sources, which no one else could be bothered to look for (seemingly would rather just delete than try to improve).
3. "The notion that "record-holders" are inherently notable is not in any way a policy-based assertion." ---> There's a reason why longevity record holders are frequently reported on by the media: because being the oldest person in the world, out of several billion, is a remarkable thing. On the contrary, some people recently seem to be pushing the idea that "people can't be notable for longevity and I don't care what you say la la la", as evidenced by these AfD's. [7] [8] [9] [10] That's the real problem with these articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is comparable to nominating Misao Okawa for deletion...Oh wait, that happened. What? Okay, now I'm laughing uncontrollably. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet of User:DN-boards1 who already voted above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Augusta_Holtz&oldid=1070441962"