Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Masters (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 and redirect to List of British supercentenarians. I'm giving little weight to the "keep" opinions by Jacona and Philip Cross because they do not argue in terms of sourcing, as per the applicable inclusion guideline WP:N / WP:BIO, but seem to argue that being very old makes a person inherently notable, which has no basis in our policies or guidelines. The last opinion supports either keep or redirect, and the one remaining "keep" isn't enough to save the article. Sandstein 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Masters

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

Utterly unremarkable life puffed up with grand detail about which nursing home she lived in, # days before death during which she needed nursing care, father's change of career path, etc. Even if notable, recommend redirect to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB where sprightliness of complaint to Buckingham Palace might be noted. EEng (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is rather clear and remarkable, as evidenced by the ample reliable and verifiable sources that are unquestionably about the subject used to develop an article that provides appropriate significant coverage about her. The nomination demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for the fact that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an unacceptable argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for the fact that WP:NOPAGE is a compelling argument for redirection. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC) What's utterly remarkable really mean, anyway? Isn't it kind of weird to combine such a dramatic intensifier with a humdrum word like "remarkable"? It's kind of like saying "intensly warm". [reply]

My comment demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for WP:NOPAGE, a completely useless argument that is the exact equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just with fewer letters. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we've come to the nub of the matter, since NOPAGE is part of applicable notability guidelines. No surprise you're disregarding it, though. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual articles on the oldest supercentenarians are relatively common (see List of oldest living people). As Catherine Masters was the oldest person in Scotland at the time she died, her inclusion is entirely legitimate. Some accounts of an 'ordinary' life (like your's and mine) should be included in Wikipedia, and an unusually long lifespan is the means to legitimise the inclusion of such an individual's biography. The current articles about supercentenarians do not go into any detail about any individual at all. In addition to the article already mentioned, the main ones are List of the verified oldest people, List of oldest living people by country and Oldest people, but this seems to the case for other articles linked from Template:Longevity. Philip Cross (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The current articles about supercentenarians do not go into any detail about any individual at all": That's why most of them are now being redirected to lists, per WP:PERMASTUB. EEng (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland is not an independant country, so toss that argument. Fun story about getting the same card 5 years in a row though. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Importance and notability are not at all the same thing. While these articles about really old people aren't necessarily important, they receive a lot of attention, and that's really what gng is all about. Jacona (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question here isn't notability, but WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Keep, because I don't agree with this application of nopage.Jacona (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If not here, where would WP:NOPAGE apply? This one seems like the archetypical case. What am I missing? David in DC (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to an appropriate longevity list. WP:NOPAGE is not at all equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps reading them both would help to understand why. Distinguishing between the two ought not be difficult. This is definitely a WP:NOPAGE situation. Nothing encyclopedic appears in any of the sources. The apology for five identical birthday cards from Prince William is cute, but hardly justifies a stand-alone bio. Deleting the article and then redirecting to an appropriate list serves the subject adequately and follows our general notability guideline (there ain't none here) and our reqirement of WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent reliable sources. The only sources here fit into the exception codified by WP:ROUTINE and WP:PERMASTUB. David in DC (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to an appropriate longevity list. We're seeing an awful lot of these oldest living people bio articles come up at Afd and I have to say I'm surprised we have so many. In this case, I agree WP:NOPAGE certainly applies. There is no lasting notability here. This otherwise unremarkable person lived for a long while. She got birthday greetings, etc. Other people after her will live very long lives in the UK, and congratulations to them all. But we don't need a lot of individual WP:PERMASTUBs on people such as this. Lists are the best way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable supercentenarian.--Inception2010 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "In 2009, [Masters] wrote to Buckingham Palace to complain that she had received a birthday card with the same design for five consecutive years." Cheeky old girl. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Was the oldest living person in Scotland at the time of her death and has a well-sourced article. Until this whole "Non-notability" or "No Page"-stuff is resolved there should be put a stop onto all these AfD-nominations. 930310 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 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.