Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Rose Mueller (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Rose Mueller[edit]

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

Person who was the second oldest person in the state of Connecticut (not even the US) is not sufficient notability. Further, she was at the time, she was one of the 50 oldest living people but now doesn't hit our top 106 oldest of all time. Both of the sources here are basically obituaries and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all. Does not even come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG. Nothing of encyclopedic interest here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ummm, this seemed to go into much more detail than some other longevity "record-holder" pages, so I went to look at the two references. ~~They're both dead links. I tagged them as such.~~ I think this page presents little that's notable, in the sense that this term is used on Wikipedia, i.e. WP:N. But in case the closer is persuaded that the article should stay, somebody really ought to find some references that are useful. From the titles, I guess the dead links were two obits. But even that's not certain.David in DC (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: A bot replaced the deadlinks with links to archived copies at the Wayback Machine. They help with notability not one whit. David in DC (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, while not helping with the subject's notability, the last line of one of the obits has one of the finest suggestions for people wanting to make a memorial gesture I've ever read: "In lieu of flowers, her grandson suggested mourners give their grandparents "a big hug and tell them that you love them." David in DC (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, don't hug too hard. EEng (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there's more than usual, but look at what it is: "Her hair was thick and gray, and she didn't need to bother taking prescriptions day after day. She was still sharp and her fingers were still capable of threading needles and doing the needlework she enjoyed passing the time doing. Most of all, she loved to read magazines. According to her family, she spent a lot of her time gently and slowly thumbing through one of the many magazines she kept by her easy chair. When she was not doing that or needlework, she often sat in her chair and looked out through the window at the picturesque wooded backyard." EEng (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's featured article level in prose. It's called context and gives you a full idea of what her life was life. Wouldn't we all be better off if all articles had those kinds of details like that? 166.170.50.162 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if all articles read like children's books? No. EEng (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting the type of coverage that would exceed WP:ROUTINE and satisfy WP:N. Canadian Paul 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. What we have here is a case of pseudo-biography, per WP:PSEUDO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:02, 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.