Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldie Steinberg

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. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Steinberg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and consider a merger, in part) to List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire. I would not be opposed to short capsule biographies in articles such as this, as are present in List of German supercentenarians. But I don't think the project is well-served by separate articles for by-country record holders. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oppose to redirect or delete this article. she was second oldest person in United States (and one of the last people who was born in the 19th century), it is notable. as with Antonia Gerena Rivera that became keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera. In addition, the source of this article is not incomplete. personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is not reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG (well sourced and notable for being the oldest ever person from the Russian Empire/Moldova and the oldest ever Jewish person). Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ollie231213, and this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the sixth oldest person in the world at that time (45th overall) and second oldest in the United States is not notable. Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), being the oldest person in the world is not sufficient efor being notable. Here, she was allegedly the oldest person person in present-day Moldova and the oldest person born in the historical Russian empire (of course this is barely sourced to a single source, the GRG tables) and the oldest Jewish person (which is where the articles are coming) but this kind of trivial connections are not enough for a separate article on the person. There is no List of the oldest Jews as I think most people would question against similar lists for other religions as trivia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm going to look into your argument in-depth when I get home. Precedents are definitely worth examining, and this is potentially a precedent I didn't know about. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Don't give them too much credence though. Consensus can change and with the small number of users at AFD nowadays, consensus can swing wildly article to article for whatever reason. I just bring those up because the nominator here really didn't put much effort in and the issues I'm looking at have been discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Koto Okubo was never the oldest person in the world, only the world's oldest woman.

2. She remained anonymous until age 114 and was not covered widely in the media, so there wasn't much to write a biography about. That was the bigger reason to delete her article. But clearly, if a world's oldest person titleholder DOES get covered in the media, the wider community clearly does think that they're notable. See here.

3. That Goldie Steinberg is the "oldest verified Jewish person ever" is not really an issue of "trivia". Notice that in a large number of reliable sources, she was reported on because she was the "oldest Jew". Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect outside sources... and the media clearly think that this is notable. So do I. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, Steinberg was the sixth oldest person. As to sourcing, WP:N says we look at the reliable sources that exist to determine notability. The lack of coverage is evidence of her lack of notability, as opposed to asserting a prior that she is notable and the lack of evidence is is why her biography is lacking. The fact that a titleholder didn't get covered unless it's a bunch of obituaries at the time of his or her death further convinces me that this coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage, more like a WP:BLP1E situation and not evidence of notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being the sixth oldest person is not what she is primarily notable for. She's most notable for being the oldest Jewish person ever, as determined by the reliable news sources that have reported her as "the oldest Jewish person ever". Furthermore, your reasoning regarding the Koto Okubo AfD does not make sense. Why should, in theory, one particular world's oldest person be less notable than another? They both held the same title. And the fact that the W.O.P titleholder usually gets covered in the media suggests that being the world's oldest person is notable. That's why I'm in favour of saying that all such titleholders pass WP:GNG, in the same way that it's often decided on Wikipedia that "every member of parliament is notable enough for an article" and "every PGA tour golfer is notable enough". The only reason not to have an article would be the odd case like Koto Okubo where she wasn't as widely covered and as such, there aren't many details to write an article about. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then forgetting Okubo then, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier was closed with a person who was (1) the oldest living person; (2) the oldest living woman; (3) the oldest Frenchwoman ever and (4) the oldest nun and none of those facts made her automatically notable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Tessier wasn't recognised as the WOP at the time due to Izumi's claim; had people known about him not being the age he claimed to be at the time, there would have been a (large) probability for Mrs. Tessier to have received more media coverage (such as Izumi received). Using Tessier as an example is clearly taking issues out of their context in this case.Fiskje88 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Otherwise, an alternative would be to redirect or merge to a relevant list of supercentenarians. clpo13_(talk) 20:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage consists almost entirely of obituaries and her 114th birthday party, which does not satisfy the requirements of WP:N. Canadian Paul 22:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that WP:1E should trumps WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, but in this case there are a couple of reasons that make this dubious. First, a lifespan is not an event. It is the length of a lifespan that is notable, not any particular point in time. Second, she is the oldest verified Jewish person. If we were to call a lifespan an event, then according to WP:1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." For many, being the oldest Jew is a highly significant event. So, I think you had a stronger argument for your original keep. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. It's like saying "If Tiger Woods wasn't a golfer, he wouldn't be notable, so he shouldn't have an article". The whole point is that she didn't die at a young age, and that's why she's notable. Being extremely aged isn't one event any more than being a golfer is; it's an intrinsic part of the person. The amount of coverage that the world's oldest people receive in the news is evidence that the oldest people in the world are notable. Look at all these reports on Goldie Steinberg while she was still alive. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am One of Many and Ollie231213. Thanks for responding to my vote change. To be honest, I'm very "on the fence" with my redaction. I think that both of your arguments in rebuttal are absolutely strong and enough for me to (wow... lol) consider redacting... my redaction... as stupid as this sounds (haha). My tipping point right now is WP:1E; I think that there are issues with ambiguity and lack of clarity in WP:1E, and that this lack of clarity is allowing AfDs to close inconsistently as well as overly-wide interpretations to occur. I think that you're right; the cause for notability (longevity) isn't an "event". I just see a big problem when editors are able to cite old AfD's with articles in identical areas that resulted different closures. Seeing the older AfDs that resulted in deletion of similar articles (people who loved a long time) is what contributed to my vote change. Expansion and clarity to this guideline is needed, and will help clearly define two very important terms:

What is an event, and
What is highly significant.

~~See my discussion about this here. I'm going to start on this now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've changed my vote back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources consider her being the oldest Jewish person as notable, and I don't see a violation of WP:GNG either; in addition, being one of the last known survivors of the Kishinev pogrom establishes notability beyond simple longevity. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person of X ethnicity" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple years of media coverage - NOT just her 114th birthday, as there are reports and photographs from 109th [14] and 112th [15] birthdays - as well as coverage for being the world's oldest verified Jew ever make her notable. Again, some people try to diminish a person's notability to a WP:1E when this is not the case. Research (and help improve the article, if you think there is not enough information in there) before you decide to nominate. Fiskje88 (talk) 14:15, 22 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.