Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Cock (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 18:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Cock (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)

It's been 3 years since the last AfD, and in that time a lot has changed. The original was beset with SPAs, many with a connection to the GRG, and the argument seemed to be that she was notable for being the oldest person in a country. There are a grand total of 5 sources, all of which are either one-off articles or entirely unremarkable routine coverage. As with all too many supercentenarian articles, WP:NOPAGE applies; she lived, she died, and aside from various longevity trivia there's almost no detail about her. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable as five sources is plenty and notability does not expire. WP:NOPAGE is a silly argument because a separate page is obviously sensible for information about a particular person, whose name is a natural title and search string. And, in any case, that's all just guideline level quibbling. The actual policies which apply here are WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with some fluff about her health history and her offspring. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strip the stuff about other super old people and you have a little trivia. I might guess that a really old person never got sick (really helps you get old) and she had a family. I agree with the nom's rational and that just above me. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes not especially remarkable but why is it not notable, and not of likely human interest. They are the oldest person in a country, continent, and planetary region. WP:NEXIST seems to be well satisfied. Why should someone who has lived such a long time not be more than just a row in a list table. Here are some references to her marriage, and her two daughthers: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. There are also these references to her too. Aoziwe (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to provide you with verifiable bona fide RS journalistic sources referencing my marriage and my two sons. That does not make me notable. Even if I get really old, I'd need to do something remarkable in order to deserve "more than just a row in a list table". — JFG ^talk 09:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkability does not come into it. If remarkability was required then 90% of all sports people, horses, jockeys, never even one hit wonder music groups, and 99.99% of celebrities, who are only famous for being famous, etc., would also need to be deleted (a majority of wikipedia?). They just need to have been noted in IRS for having done it, and this subject has been noted for having lived an extraordinary long life by multiple IRS. Aoziwe (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. In addition, your comparisons are very different; they all are examples of people who did something in the first place, whereas these people did not do something (die). Unless the subject is already notable (c.f. Leila Denmark) or received signifcant coverage beyond getting to a certain position on the Angel of Death's hit list (such as Jiroemon Kimura), there's nothing beyond trivia to create a biography. (And for the record, I happen to think the number of athlete pages is way out of control but lack sufficient knowledge of any sport besides American baseball to be useful in drawing up criteria). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. Also, "oldest person in country X" is not a position or title with predecessors and successors, it's just random trivia. — JFG ^talk 09:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No independent notability. SportingFlyer talk 22:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Living well past the average lifespan is a notable achievement and deserves recognition user:Crveni5 (user talk:Crveni5)

  According to what policy? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her name, age and country are "recognised" on at least three different lists. And as per above, do you have any policy or guideline based reasoning for keeping? Because nowhere does it say "Living well past the average lifespan makes you notable". CommanderLinx (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing here that isn't easily handled in a list somewhere. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2018 (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.