Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orma Slack

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 and redirect to List of Canadian supercentenarians . Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orma Slack[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 21:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it may be deleted.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with List of Canadian supercentenarians. Not notable enough to justify a standalone article. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Changed my vote from "delete" to "delete or merge". Still don't think she's notable enough for a standalone article but as the oldest person in Canada, and with being reported on by local news sources, I think that a mini-biography could be created at List of Canadian supercentenarians. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources within Canada establish notability WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. If notability is the issue, a redirect to List of Canadian supercentenarians may be a better alternative. clpo13_(talk) 20:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ Merge Not notable enough to support having a standalone article. Possibly merge with List of Canadian supercentenarians and create a mini-bio. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources demonstrate significant coverage or notability. Half the sources should not be used (1 and 3 fail WP:OR and 8 is a blog post), 6 and 7 are local coverage as she lived in Belleview, Ontario and the last ones are obituaries. Nothing that helps establish notability. She is however, notable to be on a list as seen at List of Canadian supercentenarians. Note that it was only "believed" she was the oldest Canadian. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. Entry is not notable enough to warrant an article of its own, but being the oldest living person from Canada in her time justifies a merger into List of Canadian supercentenarians as a section under the tables. A simple redirect to that article suffices if consensus agrees that even that much notability is insufficient. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "multiple, reliable sources" are repetitious items on successive birthdays, an obit and a link to Ancestry.com. That does not satisfy WP:GNG. There's nothing encyclopedic here. David in DC (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple other AfDs of centenarians, it's clear that some are notable for being long-lived. A consistent policy is needed here lest we have death by a thousand cuts. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MBW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect. Although I agree that Mrs. Slack's age wasn't among the oldest of the oldest, I do think that deletion is too easy a solution; let's see what can be salvaged and used elsewhere. What I also find interesting is that accounts which usually support keeping supercentenarian articles in other AfDs suddenly have not been identified as WP:SPA now that they support the deletion.Fiskje88 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'"delete non-notable supercentenarian. also this unnecessary aritcle was created by INDEFINITE blocked user.--2403:99DD:6FE5:6E00:15E3:DA92:7566:CA90 (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet sst ✈ 11:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 11:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect- The problem with these articles is what happens as medicine improves and people start living into their 140's? Does WP constantly update the article with the next oldest person? Is WP the Guiness Book of World Records? This topic makes sense to have a list of people who are or were the oldest living but not a biographical article unless the person was notable for some other reason apart from living so long. JMHO. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're nowhere near people living to 140, or even 130. The 120 barrier has only been verifiably broken once. But if, far in the future, people DID live to 140+, they might want to know how long people lived in 2015. Notability is not temporary. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does cite a number of reliable sources. Although some sources such as this certainly do not add much value to the article. However, the 109th and 110th birthday reports are pretty extensive, cotaining a large amount of biographical information. At the very least, this information should be included in a small mini-bio at List of Canadian supercentenarians. Bodgey5 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with minibio to List of Canadian supercentenarians. David in DC (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect There are several articles and sources for this Wikipedia page, so she should be considered to have been notable. Mrs. Slack was the oldest person in Canada at the time of her death, quite an achievement... If she is not considered to be notable enough then a redirect to the list of Canadian supercentenarians is probably the best way to go. 930310 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar articles at other recent AfDs were not keep'd, WP:Articles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc, WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), probably many more if I look further. So I don't think it's been made clear that living to a certain age or even being the "world's oldest..." makes someone notable. If that's the case, then the next oldest Canadian would instantly qualify for an article, even they had little or no coverage (note that, "Officials with several provincial and Canadian ministries, including Statistics Canada, said their record-keeping practices don't allow them to determine the country's oldest resident." [1]). Several of these centenarians could die within months or weeks of each other, and only have very little or no coverage as "oldest... " Would each one be notable just because they happened to be the oldest person in their county? Also note CommanderLinx's points on the sources and being "believed" to be the oldest. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources look good to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to justify a stand-alone article. Being a supercentenarian does not in itself confer notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:27, 26 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.