Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Porlock

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 understanding that the correct full name is Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock. The argument that simply being an author is not sufficient for notability is supported by WP:BIO; in the "special cases" section The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Being the oldest author (formerly or presently) would likewise be insufficient in and of itself to establish notability for article status, but it would be sufficiently notable to include in a world records article; for instance, one could create a new section for Oldest people that relates the oldest people to hold particular professions, or one could add a record listing to List of world records. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Porlock

Prodded as non-notable; prod was removed within minutes. I cannot find any information about this woman beyond the single sentence currently in the article: "Alice Porlock published her first book Portrait of My Victorian Youth when she was 102 years old." There's no reference for this information, and the only ones I could find were random, unreliable websites using it as an example of people accomplishing things despite their elderly age. Propaniac 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per CSD A7-bio, without prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing and asserted notability. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article being a stub is no reason for deletion if it can be expanded. It seems that the web provides insufficient content, but it is not the only source available.--Orthologist 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, but if nobody has any evidence that the article CAN be expanded, I don't see why it should be assumed as such. Also, the one fact that we do have about Ms. Porlock does not make her notable enough for her own article, in my opinion, regardless of how rich a biography we may discover. Propaniac 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon further searching, I've realized that the author of the named book seems to be Alice Pollock, not Porlock, and she may be a current or former holder of the Guinness record for oldest published author. ("Alice Pollock" has no relevant results on Wikipedia and no further information on Google.) Propaniac 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we could move the page? If she's been referred to in Guiness, she is notable.--Orthologist 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is kept, it should be moved to the correct name. And I can't verify whether she is or isn't in the Guinness book; I just found a couple of unreliable references that mentioned she was the record holder. If the page had said that she was a Guinness record holder, I probably wouldn't have nominated, but AFAIK that in itself isn't a steadfast criterion for notability, either, since I believe both the recent, verified recordholders for "most t-shirts worn at one time" were deleted recently. Propaniac 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's in an older Guinness I have here, from 1976 I think (the cover's missing). --Charlene 01:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete <&SEQ=20070330170856&SID=1 Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock (1971; so the age is probably right) but is this notability? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (?) and Redirect. Only 12 Google hits for Alice, and in almost every case all the information posted is the single sentence "Alice Porlock of Great Britain published her first book, Portrait of My Victorian Youth, when she was 102 years old," which is in fact the complete text of the article here. Someone is (not very thoroughly) spamming websites with this tidbit, which is inaccurate, because the real author is Alice Wykeham-Martin Pollock, who published her book in 1971 according to Amazon UK. She's in Guiness, yes, but is not notable for anything else, no biographical information for her is available, and no one particularly bought the book, so I don't know if this supports an article even under her right name. Ravenswing 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As per Ravenswing, it shows on US Amazon too although it is not stocked by Amazon. I would merge with the correct name and keep it. JBEvans
Weak Delete with no prejudice against creating an article which includes information, is sources, and is spelled correctly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per this in the Library of congress.--Paloma Walker 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, include book as further reading in Victorian era Probably a great source on the times, but not enough for an article or stub. Anynobody 07:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per Baccyak4H's comments, CSD A7 thewinchester 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Publishing a book at whatever age doesn't make someone notable unless there are sources backing it up. A scholarly search using Lexis Nexis revealed nothing that makes her notable. --Mus Musculus 05:07, 10 April 2007 (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.