Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eudoxie Baboul
- 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 redirect to List of French supercentenarians. And merge whatever seems appropriate and has consensus from history. A merger is the outcome most supported here. Sandstein 09:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Eudoxie Baboul (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)
Non-notable supercentenarian with no significant coverage. No justification for a stand-alone article because everything of value (her name, age and country) is already mentioned and sourced in List of French supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete as per nom. Possibly Merge to List of French supercentenarians, but hardly seems worth it. Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete or
mergeredirect to List of French supercentenarians. I was going to nominate this article for deletion after making some copyedits and removing fancruft (she cultivated and sold vegetables in her younger years) but I was on my phone. There's no significant independent coverage of this person's age and she's at most notable for the single event of being very old (BLP1E). Every significant fact in the article (birth date, birth country, country of residence, current age) is already included in the French list. Ca2james (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Adding: I changed my merge !vote to redirect, above. All of the information about her is in the table on that page so there's nothing to merge. I specifically do not mean that a new subsection (aka a mini-biography) for her should be created on that page: a new subsection would duplicate the information in the list and is not needed. Ca2james (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Including her occupation in her younger years is a biographical detail, NOT fancruft. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to List of French supercentenarians. She is verified and featured by the GRG and has been the subject of newspaper articles on several occasions. Certainly enough coverage in reliable sources to at least justify a stub article. A mini-biography at the French supercentenarians article might be more suitable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This article has seen no improvement since creation in May. Can you provide these "several newspaper articles" as per WP:BURDEN? Because in the five months no new material has been added. Verification by GRG does not mean a person is notable. There is absolutely nothing to merge at this point either so a mini-bio isn't needed as per above. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- See 930310's post below. Being included in the GRG tables counts as coverage in reliable sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- This article has seen no improvement since creation in May. Can you provide these "several newspaper articles" as per WP:BURDEN? Because in the five months no new material has been added. Verification by GRG does not mean a person is notable. There is absolutely nothing to merge at this point either so a mini-bio isn't needed as per above. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to List of French supercentenarians. While Mrs. Baboul might potentially not be notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article she's likely notable enough to at least have a short mini-biography. As for news coverage here are a few:
- Regarding her becoming the oldest living French person: http://www.franceguyane.fr/regions/guyane/les-secrets-de-la-longevite-d-eudoxie-baboul-244182.php
- Regarding her 112th birthday: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15nmq6_la-doyenne-de-guyane-eudoxie-baboul-a-112-ans_news
- Regarding her 111th birthday: http://www.blada.com/boite-aux-lettres/infos-citoyennes/8433-Commune_de_Sinnamary.htm
- Regarding her 110th birthday: http://sinnamary.mairies-guyane.org/?actualite=68&la-doyenne-de-guyane-est-sinnamarienne
- Regarding her 109th birthday: http://www.franceguyane.fr/regions/dans-vos-communes/eudoxie-hermine-baboul-a-fete-ses-109-ans-05-10-2010-71201.php?
- So she has been featured in the media several times. 930310 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- None of these sources really help establish notability. Number 1 and 5 require a subscription to view, and 3 and 4 are two sentences about her birthday. I can't watch number 2 on my mobile so I can't comment on it. As for the GRG reference, it's a list of names in a table. Again, a mini-bio is not necessary because there is nothing to merge. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- What does then? It doesn't matter if a source requires a subscription to view. The point is that there are several reports on her previous birthdays because of her age. How many articles about your birthdays have there been? Oh, and by the way, to dismiss the GRG as just "a list of names in a table" is total nonsense. What counts as significant coverage is dependent upon context. If a longevity claimant has been verified by an organisation and included on a list of the oldest people, then that implies notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing in WP:GNG that says that being listed by the GRG or similar organization implies that the subject is notable, or that what is considered significant is dependent on context. A few brief mentions of this person's age in local media, appearance in the GRG tables, and a video of a local news broadcast talking about her age do not qualify as significant independent mentions. In fact, they're all local, making her a low-profile individual, and they all focus on her only in the context of her age, so per WP:BLP1E, there should be no article on her. Ca2james (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- The point is that the GRG is being called a "set of names on a list" when clearly it's more than that. If someone is on that list, it means they're one of the oldest people in the world (making her at least a bit notable). It may be local news but it's still news, and the fact that she has been reported on multiple occasions means that she is clearly not notable for one event. Longevity is not "one event" in the same way that being a footballer is not "one event" -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that because this is an article about a low-profile living person, the policy that applies is WP:BLP1E, not WP:ONEEVENT. Also, what seems clear to you is not clear to others: I also see the GRG tables as being a bunch of names on a list, primarily because the "scientific validation" process isn't described anywhere on the site. Ca2james (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- The point is that the GRG is being called a "set of names on a list" when clearly it's more than that. If someone is on that list, it means they're one of the oldest people in the world (making her at least a bit notable). It may be local news but it's still news, and the fact that she has been reported on multiple occasions means that she is clearly not notable for one event. Longevity is not "one event" in the same way that being a footballer is not "one event" -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing in WP:GNG that says that being listed by the GRG or similar organization implies that the subject is notable, or that what is considered significant is dependent on context. A few brief mentions of this person's age in local media, appearance in the GRG tables, and a video of a local news broadcast talking about her age do not qualify as significant independent mentions. In fact, they're all local, making her a low-profile individual, and they all focus on her only in the context of her age, so per WP:BLP1E, there should be no article on her. Ca2james (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- What does then? It doesn't matter if a source requires a subscription to view. The point is that there are several reports on her previous birthdays because of her age. How many articles about your birthdays have there been? Oh, and by the way, to dismiss the GRG as just "a list of names in a table" is total nonsense. What counts as significant coverage is dependent upon context. If a longevity claimant has been verified by an organisation and included on a list of the oldest people, then that implies notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- None of these sources really help establish notability. Number 1 and 5 require a subscription to view, and 3 and 4 are two sentences about her birthday. I can't watch number 2 on my mobile so I can't comment on it. As for the GRG reference, it's a list of names in a table. Again, a mini-bio is not necessary because there is nothing to merge. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. this person is oldest person ever in French Guiana and passes WP:GNG. I think that article of Olympe Amaury is should be deleted than this article because younger than Eudoxie Baboul's current age.--Inception2010 (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- She is currently the oldest person in French Guiana but she will not be the oldest person there forever; eventually, someone will be older. Since notability is not temporary, the fact that she is currently the oldest is not a basis for notability. Moreover, the fact that she has received only limited coverage (French Guiana has a population smaller than the city I live in, and no news agency outside of French Guiana has given her coverage) focused on her age is an indication that she does not pass WP:GNG, particularly WP:BLP1E. Ca2james (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to whatever list. Nothing standalone-worthy at all. EEng (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.