Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Gibson

Susie Gibson

Susie Gibson (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)

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage, obituaries and one or two local news reports, none of which establish notability. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit here can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Wikipedia's long, contentious history of editing surrounding World’s Oldest People topics continues, as this discussion is being canvassed off-wiki by community banned user Ryoung122. The link is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so you have to delete the space after the first period for the link to work. I also have a screen shot saved if needed: invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=14494&st=345 Canadian Paul 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I think there is no need to delete this article. Being second oldest person in America and also the third oldest person in the world out of 6.5 billion (at 2006, the year of the death of Susie Gibson) is good enough and record holders of the third oldest person in the world usually have an article. Also this article is well sourced (see article).

For the above reasons, Certainly passes WP:G, WP:BIO and not meet WP:ROUTINE.

There is also a method of marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People (Just as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris).

I think this page is more important and more notable than Ella Schuler's page. Susie Gibson was the world's third oldest person. However, Ella Schuler was only the 7th oldest. Ella Schuler's page is should be deleted than this article.Inception2010 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about Ella Schuler here. If you think her article should be deleted then feel free to nominate it for deletion. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in the above keep addresses the sourcing which is what determines notability as per the quoted guidelines. You've argued what should be notable, not what is according to our guidelines. When you look at the sourcing, we have a single obituary and a book that we can't review (but probably has her in a table somewhere). That's not even close to enough. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The book can be read through Google books preview and it doesn't help with notability at all. I looked quickly and it appears she gets a total of 4 (out of 322) pages that simply tell us how her age was validated. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The above vote summed this up nicely. Despite Inception2010 saying so, this article is not "well sourced" at all and would fail the guidelines to biographies at the WP:WOP Wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Update following addition of sources. Nothing to change my vote. A second ref to a book that covers her in 4 pages, another we can't read (but appears she was interviewed for) and an article that tells us three things (she's 115, read the Bible and her mother died at 104). CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep A Strong Claim Of Notability, With Appropriate Reliable And Verifiable Sources To Back It Up, In An Article Providing Significant Coverage Of The Subject.
• Comment Really? Susie Gibson isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--124.108.219.196 (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • A lack of sourcing isn't a reason to delete a page? Really? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for all the WP guidelines mentioned above. Please note that the ones who have voted 'delete' in this AfD are as much biased as the people they tag as 'SPAs', as these "delete" voters have continuously been appearing in AfD in this topic for the past year and a half; in other words, the two 'delete' votes have not come from any random third party. Now, I understand that not every supercentenarian who has lived should have his/her own Wikipedia article - in fact, I am also in favour of trimming the Longevity project here down to a sizeable amount of articles - but I do not think it is necessary to delete Mrs Gibson's article; a quick Google search reveals that Mrs Gibson still appears in newspaper articles as recently as 2015, has appeared in foreign newspapers as well, and is still commonly referred to in supercentenarian research. Therefore, I see no point in deleting her article. Fiskje88 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please do feel free to present examples of substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'll happily swap my opinion if you can find what I could not. One-line mentions, of course, do not assist in establishing notability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Same as above, provide the sources (in the article, not in this AFD discussion) that would make it so she satisfies the notability guidelines and I'll change my vote. Because as it stands, this article doesn't even satisfy the WP:WOP Wikiproject guidelines to biographies let alone GNG. I'm also interested to see what you found because all I could find were unreliable sources (forum posts and Wiki mirrors), duplicate obituaries and table listings which doesn't help. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    • No problem, I'll do so later this weekend. :) Thank you for trying to think along! Fiskje88 (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Update: sources added. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Not seeing anything significant to change my vote. One book we can't read. I think she was interviewed for it but not sure how extensive it was. Another ref is from that Supercentenarians book I commented on earlier (four pages telling us how her age was validated). The last article doesn't tell us much (other than she is 115, read the Bible and her mother lived to 104). So not changing my vote here. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
          • We are all entitled to different opinions; to me, a person who was considered relevant enough to be discussed in two books (one of which a scientific one) and whose life was covered in foreign media outlets deserves a standalone article, as apparently there is something intriguing about her life. I do not really buy your argument of "[o]ne book we cannot read", as anyone who has taken the trouble to buy the book can actually read about her; there is more to life than (usually) short-lived Internet sources. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Susie was a well-known supercentenarian known for staying active into extreme old age. /Chimney148 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimney148 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Even the LA Times piece, other than giving the fact that she died and at what age, plus that she lived in one house for 80 years, is entirely concerned with other old people. The article recites the usual unremarkable minutiae such as remembering the Titanic. NOPAGE. EEng 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see a strong reason to delete the story, it isn't read a lot, but it's read. I did a little editing and can add a bit more to the article. There are some primary sources that can clarify some points - which I would not normally use, and generally advise against, but I think it will help tell her story a bit better. I will also add some additional content from secondary sources and see if that helps round out her story a bit better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I found quite a bit more content in books and newspaper articles - the article is almost 3 times the size it was when I started. There may be too much personal information there - but if it stays it's easy to prune unnecessary information.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)