Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa Thiers

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 to delete - no reliable sources are present, and none of those recommending keeping this were able to provide any, despite stating that Thiers was notable -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Louisa Thiers

Louisa Thiers (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 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nom 11-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable OHB, an article about the 19th Amendment not related to the subject, and a U of WI family archive (primary source?) insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 12/2007. Article may be interesting but, if so, notability should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. JJB 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You're not supposed to vote on your own nomination. Also, the length of an article does not disestablish notability. This woman is listed as the world's oldest person and the first person to verifiably reach age 111. That establishes notability far more than sufficient for inclusion here. There's a reason people still remember this case some 80+ years later: because she was notable.Ryoung122 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one can certainly vote "delete as nom". No, "assertion of notability" is not "proof of notability"; the former prevents speedy deletion, the latter prevents AFD deletion, and you haven't shown the latter. Please correct the GNG failure with sources. JJB 03:13, 9 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) 01:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep She was the worlds first person to undisputedly make it to her 111th birthday, she was the worlds oldest living person. Longevitydude (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep This is notable. She was the first person on record to celebrate her 111th birthday. DHanson317 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Another POV agenda attack from JJ. This person is notable, as the first verified person to reach age 111. But you'd believe in verifiability, you believe in mythology, such as persons living to 950.

Also, you can't establish consensus with yourself, and then quote yourself as consensus. That's a circular fallacy.

Also, inclusion in a list doesn't mean a biography isn't needed...no one says that because Hank Aaron is in a list of home run hitters, RBI leaders, and runs scored leaders that "he's in enough lists already."Ryoung122 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I simply note for readers that every point in this comment is either patent illogic, or logic already rebutted. JJB 03:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Im not trying to sound mean, but at least you could have presented diffs proving your claims, Robert Young backs up his claims with reliable sources, the two of you need to find some sort of compromise, we cant all be fighting like this, were tearing wikipedia apart. Longevitydude (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. First person to reach 111. Oldest person in Wisconsin. A notable person. Amply documented. — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam46136 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Cam46136. As the first person to reach 111, she indeed is notable.

I concur with Robert Young's view of JJB's POV pushing...the subject of longevity is more accommodating to FACT, not MYTH/FICTION. As first verified person to reach 111, you, JJB, as a believer of humans living 950 years or more, might believe that Thiers' age isn't impressive. Wrong. As her article is sufficiently backed by sources, I see no reason why this should get an AfD. Brendan (talk, contribs) 14:56, 12 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.