Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delphia Hankins

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 Merge and redirect. Tyrenius (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delphia Hankins[edit]

Another non-notable very old person. The 214-word "obituary" cited is little more than a verbose funeral notice, and a google search threw up only only two more refs in reliable sources: [1] and [2], both of which are also just slightly-expanded funeral notices. Without any substantial coverage, she fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 9 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 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep don't want to tag them all, but there are links to be found. Not all are NYT but good grief, this was the late 1800s when they were born. My mom doesn't have a birth certificate and she was born in the 30s, so its not that odd. Per my others, oldest is noteworthy. Pharmboy (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the fact of someone being that old is of course noteworthy, which is why we have lists of such people. However, a standalone article requires us to establish notability per WP:BIO, for which we need not just links, but substantial coverage in reliable sources, and my checks have not found any (though there are plenty of mentions in wikipedia mirrors and other such unreliable sources). Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, if you believe that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, please can you give us some links? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment bio says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" so "substantial coverage" is only one standard, it is not the only standard. Also, notability is not always a valid arguement to delete anyway, via wp:Notability/Historical/Arguments and because wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I think you have to cut a little bit of slack with wp:rs when you are talking about something over 100 years old, or someone. Pharmboy (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per U.S. state holder. Since this person is on tables, I could sleep fine at night knowing this person has her own article. Neal (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians, where this information can be kept with other seminotable supercentarians. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone /^/(talk) 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom:

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.