Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy d'Abreu

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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy d'Abreu

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Following the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier that being the oldest person in the world was insufficient to be automatically notable, a person who was at one time the oldest person in the United Kingdom is not sufficient. She may still be the oldest person born in the British raj but that's basically trivia rather than real notability as the world's oldest Scottish man (and 2nd oldest UK man) was likewise deleted. Excluding ancestry.com (which I suspect wouldn't qualify as a WP:RS, all the sources here are obituaries which are more akin to WP:ROUTINE coverage than evidence of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Augustine Tessier was certainly the oldest person in the world, She had holds its title for only a short time (22 January 1981 - 8 March 1981) of 34 years ago. article of Augustine Tessier was deleted for the contents or sources was insufficient. However, article of Lucy d'Abreu is not insufficient of contents or sources. she was oldest person in UK for long time, it is notable. I think that there is no reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So it's notable if she held the title for a long time? Regardless of title? I'm just trying to figure out what your standards are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

d"Abreau was just the oldest in the UK not the world's oldest. Do you think the oldest of each country is sufficient to confer notability? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. Given that there are a whole bunch of centanarian AfDs up right now, my take is that a GNG for these folks is needed. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "a GNG is needed"? There's only one WP:GNG. EEng (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of deletes and redirects [1] Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every supercentenarian needs an article, but given that she is the oldest ever person born in India, and there are a number of sources, I think an article is justified. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say she was the oldest person ever born in India? I thought this was just the oldest person born during the British raj time period? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nom. Any possibly decent source is already in the article, all other search results I see are mentions of her being of old age. Each source pretty much says the same thing (standard supercentenarian/"oldest..." info), with some ordinary and pointless details about her life ("Staff said Mrs d'Abreu reads a newspaper daily, walks with a stick and enjoys food, books and conversation." [2]). There doesn't seem to be much to write about her or most other supercentenarians. The most relevant information about her (name, birth, nationality, death, age, "oldest...") is already in List of oldest people by country and List of British supercentenarians. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All these articles should be speedy kept until we have a GNG discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.78 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.47.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable enough to be written about by multiple reliable sources. Not many people can do what she did (live to that age) TypingInTheSky (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users. it is impossible to obliterate this article.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why comment here if you're so sure it won't get deleted? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOPAGE. Insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oldest person in the UK and oldest person born in India is quite notable --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced useful article. The noms rationale for deletion is bogus, he's alluding to an afd discussion that reached consensus to delete like it was a policy discussion. Szzuk (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being the oldest person in the world doesn't convey notability, but having your life covered in the media for many years does. People can pass GNG regardless of whether or not you think they don't "deserve" to. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the only test for having a standalone article -- see WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It generally is when it comes to a biography - note there is not a single example of a biography on WP:NOPAGE. How is this content forked from anything else? What is the appropriate page for this content to be on? I'm guessing a list of the oldest people, but when you create a standalone article based on a list item, it isn't a content fork. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does content forking have to do with anything? "It generally is when it comes to a biography" -- where do you get that? The answer to your question is already above: the appropriate page for this content (what little there is) is, as mentioned by other above, is one of the gazillion of lists-of-supercentenarians.

Delete as per DerbyCountyinNZ. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a supercentenarians doesn't automatically mean you aren't notable in any case. That is a flawed argument in favour of our deletion. Meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 10 November 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.