Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian)

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. The consensus is that the one source is not sufficient to verify the notability of Watkins. The 'keeps' do not (from what I can see) sufficiently demonstrate that RejRes is a sufficiently reliable source - and the comments at [[1]] would seem to say that it may or may not be reliable. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian)

Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nom 3-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable RejRes (GRG-authored), GRG, and OHB. Nonnotability and citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. Neptune5000 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, there's no reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Until and if your proposed guideline is adopted as policy, it should carry no weight in a deletion discussion. People are welcome to agree or disagree with it as they please, but anyone who disagrees with it is entitled to express their opinion in this AfD, whether or not they choose to comment on the proposal itself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Was the recognised oldest living person in the world and oldest person in the UK at one time. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. Wiki policy on WOP's generally recognizes them as notable, as there is coverage worldwide.

There is also the option to "merge" to List of UK supercentenarians until the article is expanded. Deletion is not a correct outcome. There are several flaws in the pro-deletion argument:

--notability is not established by whether the article is sourced, but by whether reliable sources exist. Therefore, the first thing to do is to tag the article and notify the article creator that more sources are needed. Usually we give the article creator about a month, before an article is nominated for deletion. This did not happen here.

--JJBulten violated Wiki policies and guidelines, including voting on his own nomination and posting the same message to several different AFD discussions. It also appears that these nominations were in violation of WP:POINT.

As Elizabeth Watkins was recognized on the world scale as the world's oldest person, and citable coverage exists, the article should be kept, even if tagged as a stub and given time for cleanup.Ryoung122 16:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This case was featured in Guinness World Records in the 1970s and kept many years as the longevity recordholder for Northern Ireland.

Also, the assertion that Rejuvenation Research is "unreliable" is little than a smear. It is a highly-qualified outside source. It is not published by the GRG, but sometimes publishes material from the GRG.Ryoung122 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep! More broadly,those of us who contribute to the GRG,to the IDL,to Rejuvenation Research,to the SRF and Planck-Institute meetings,etc. are the most reliable sources in the world on supercentenarians,and JJB can not credibly represent that any higher standard of scholarship on the subject exists.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Reliable is a term of art on en.wikipedia. It does not meant the same thing as all of the definitions the word can have in various dictionaries. It mean, rather, that it complies with a specific rule, WP:RS. Experts are no doubt reliable for many things. They are not reliable sources for a wikipedia article unless they are quoted in a secondary source. Their (your) work, as raw data, is not reliable in the wikipedia sense, even if it is the embodiment of truth and beauty. Only if it is quoted elsewhere. Pleae see WP:TRUTH

No one is calling your work generically unreliable. It's simply not fit to back a fact on wikipedia until it's quoted in a WP:RS.

A whole lot of drama could be avoided if you and RY could try to understand that "not reliable" is no assessment of you or your work. It's about where your work is published. A scholarly, peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source for wikipedia. A list that says its statistics are supplied by you, on a page hosted by something called recordholders.org, is not a scholarly journal, nor any other kind of wikipedia-reliable source.

I'm guessing that this is falling on deaf ears. But I have to try. David in DC (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, DavidinDC, it is YOU with the deaf ears. Rejuvenation Research IS a secondary source. I don't publish it, I don't decide what they publish or not. If they ask for content, I provide it. I don't always get what I want in there.76.17.118.157 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose relying on articles published in Rejuvenation Research. I don't know why you think I do. If I have, please show me where.

I oppose any citation or external link to the list of oldest human beings hosted at recordholders.org. It has none of the attributes of a reliable source and it falls well withing the dictates of WP:ELNO. David in DC (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (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.