Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Bean

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Bean

Ivy Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Notability not established, fleeting Internet "celebrity". References are limited to Facebook and Twitter, no references of any substance or reliability. WWGB (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only "references" are Twitter and Facebook? No. — Timneu22 · talk 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion either way, but the BBC does have an article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10787726 Arnie Side (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or was until today. --Viennese Waltz talk 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She was the oldest person to be using both twitter and facebook. Longevitydude (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know what you said, I was just saying that you put "is still the oldest person" which is not strictly correct. --Viennese Waltz talk 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, even though she was not the oldest facebook user, she was still the oldest twitter user and therefore the oldest person to use both websites. Longevitydude (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient coverage. Longevitydude (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lugnuts's arguments. No lasting significance of this person, trivial, WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Longevitydude. WereWolf (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Facebook/Twitter. Swedish newpaper Aftonbladet noted her death: [1], so she has at least received coverage in Great Britain (BBC link above) and Sweden, and probably more. At least merge the info about her because she is notable enough to be mentioned. Because it's hard to say where to merge the article (Facebook or Twitter) it's easier to just keep the article. (Musicians that have been active in two notable bands receive their own article.) Jiiimbooh (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - There might be more to her story than we know now, she is in fact a centenarian.-99.98.165.151 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, please read WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary Longevitydude (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she lived that longs adds to her notability not the basis of it.--99.98.165.151 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being old and using a computer isn't notable. Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia. PR stunt all round. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has been recognized as the worlds oldest twitterer, her death was reported by several national newspapers all over the world, and she has also been recognized through British media at previous points. She was also THE oldest person and Twitter, with several other notable Twitter-users, such as Stephen Fry being admirers, aswell as expressing their sadness on news of her death. If this isnt substantial enough for this article to live, than half of Wikipedia should be deleted along with, on the exact same criteria. --Lilduff90 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe her to be sufficiently well-known to warrant a Wikipedia article. --WeirdEars (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trivia or not, she got a lot of media coverage for being the world's oldest tweeter even before her death. However, there should really be better references in the article than Facebook and Twitter. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one event/not news seem appropriate. Hekerui (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is well-know. When she died she was reported dead by CNN. Also I think the wikiproject for longevity would keep her beacuse of her fame. Just because she is a Internet celebrity doesn't mean she isn't famous. Look at the other famous Internet stars have pages too. Spongie555 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Lugnuts' reasons. Being the oldest person to use Facebook and Twitter doesn't make her notable, even though the BBC has an article on her. Sidebar: In the past we have had so-called "professional bloggers" whose only notoriety was to blog. Have all those articles been deleted? Ivy Bean, as an internet user, may fall in the same or similar category, not meaning any disrespect for the woman. Ed (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this seems to be a classic one-event case to me... I think that maybe waiting a bit before nominating would have been helpful in establishing whether or not there would be lasting notability, but I'm not particularly swayed by any of the keep arguments thus far. Canadian Paul 03:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is enough third-party coverage for notability. Her death has been documented by the Los Angeles Times website and in the far east. Philip Cross (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will be the first to acknowledge that it's a silly thing to be notable for, but I don't think this is a case of WP:BLP1E. BLP1E says "in the context of a single event". From reading it very carefully, I think the fundamental point of BLP1E is that a single high-profile event doesn't automatically confer notability on every person who is named in relation to that event. People who only played a small role in it, and didn't get coverage that singles them out as an individual beyond that event, aren't worthy of biographical articles, (for example, Tourist guy vs. Peter Guzli) and generally we couldn't write a biographical article on them anyway given that lack of coverage. BLP1E doesn't cover people who are famous for a single achievement or distinction, if (as in this case) the achievement and coverage focuses on them as a person. I'm seeing substantial amounts of coverage about Ivy's personal life, such as this Daily Mail article. Given that and the above articles, I think this has the potential to be a great article. --TexasDex ★ 05:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above. Silly thing to be famous for but it does document the nature of our time, and this is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia. prat (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, there are several media articles about her even before her death. Notablility established. Marshall Stax (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong delete per Lugnuts "Being old and using a computer isn't notable." Exactly. It is ridiculous. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia. SO we have a biography about a person who used facebook and twitter who happened to be old. If you put it in perspective it is newspaper fodder certainly not long lasting encyclopedic material...She is worthy of mentioning in in either the facebook or twitter articles as being the oldest user but a BIOGRAPHY ARTICLE on her embarrasingly non notable life before the age of 100????? "After several years in Bedford, the family returned to Bradford and Bean began working for Arthur Crossland, a local mill owner." Ooooh soooo notable...... Surely this is ONE EVENT. This is a classic case of where something should be summarized in a parent article on an event/institution, in this case website and refraining from having a biography about the person. There should really be stronger guidelines in this respect if this doesn't fail our WP:ONEEVENT guidelines. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall#!/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall&story_fbid=143614238998990 ^ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67377155437&ref=search ^ "UK's oldest Tweeter Ivy Bean dies at 104", BBC News, 28 July 2010 ^ "Oldest Tweeter talks cuppas and casserole on Twitter at 104", Daily Telegraph, 15 May 2009 ^ Adam Gabbatt [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/28/ivy-bean-oldest-twitter-dies "Ivy Bean, the oldest person on Twitter, dies at 104", The Guardian, 28 July 2010 ^ Alex Millson "Stars pay tribute to world's oldest Twitter user Ivy Bean after she dies aged 104", Daily Mail, 28 July 2010 ^ http://twitter.com/IvyBean104 ^ http://twitter.com/IvyBean104/status/18588383907 ^ http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall#!/profile.php?id=1408070963&v=wall&story_fbid=143614238998990 ^ Norwegian news of her death, CNN, BBC

Looks like sufficient coverage to me, and there are articles about her besides these. Longevitydude (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't sufficient coverage, I don't know what is, I know she wasn't the oldest facebook user, but she was still the oldest person to be using BOTH websites, she was the oldest person to use a twitter. Longevitydude (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heres a source

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1298433/Ivy-Bean-Stars-pay-tribute-worlds-oldest-Twitter-user.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Stars paying tribute to her, she must be notable if even famous people are noticing her. Longevitydude (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There has been coverage in most newspapers today, on the BBC website, and celebrities have expressed their sorrow at her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.34.36 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTNEWS. So because some celebrities "expressed sorrow at her death" that automatically makes hundred years of her life encyclopedic? Its a frickin event and should be mentioned in the main articles, not in a biography. A media frenzy that a very old woman uses the Inrernet is not a justification for a biography article. Do we start articles for every person who has their fifteen minutes of fame? Who many historical sources do you think we'll find about her life, extensive coverage in google books? This site is becoming more and more a news site everyday....How does this not fail WP:BLP1E, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL?? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is she was acknowledged by celebrities and politicians, she must be notable to get that kind of attention, and shes got a lot more coverage than just her local newspaper, celebrities and politicians don't give that kind of attention to just anyone, she did something notable to get that attention, she was the oldest person on twitter and the oldest person to use both websites, twitter and facebook, seriously how many people do celebrities acknowledge the way they acknowledged her, let alone as many famous people as the ones who paid her attention, she was important to a lot of people, a lot of people consider her notable and therefore she is, just because a few people don't consider it notable doesn't mean its not notable, why intrude on other people's interests just because you don't agree with them that its notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If shes not notable, then why do so many people fight this afd, or why does she have so much coverage, or dare I ask, why do so many famous people acknowledge her? Longevitydude (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between "famous" people acknowledging that she was old and a nice person who was in the Internet community and her biographical life being remotely encyclopedic. A biographical entry should evenly cover all aspects of her life from birth to death and assert notability. You know what. Hundred years of her avserge, humble life will never be expanded and in the end it comes down to one event, one event which should be written about in the facebook/twitter articles, not seperately. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is certainly notable to discuss her in the history of the facebook/twitter articles but a biography is completely inappropriate. Can you explain to me regardless of how "famous" she is in the views of celebrities we having a biography article about her does not fail WP:BLP1E, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Where is the extensive coverage is books about her entire life? As much as you can argue that she was beloved by politicians and celebs it still comes down to one event and a news report. She is no more notable than Mavis who used the Internet in my late grandmother's nursing home at the age of 98, a media obsession/frenzy does not make her biographical life encyclopedic Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well marvis didn't have celebrities giving him attention, and he wasn't the oldest person using the internet, and he wasn't getting sufficient coverage. Longevitydude (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's highly concerning to me is that you stress so much importance on the views of "famous celebrities" as if they are somehow God given to dictate what is encyclopedic. You stress way too much importance on celebrity culture and media frenzy like so many are guilty of. It still doesn't make her suitable for an individual encyclopedia entry. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random nobody who lacks significant coverage in any reliable sources beyond her being the "oldest person on Facebook" (so freakin what?). Fails per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and frankly just goes against general WP:COMMONSENSE. What next, the oldest person who uses Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we already have an article on the oldest facebook user, shouldn't the oldest twitter user also have an article, and as for wikipedia, wikipidians can use their user pages for their information. Longevitydude (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She visited former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah in Downing Street early in 2010.[6] Some time after creating her Facebook page, Bean also joined Twitter. At the time of her death, she had 4,962 friends on Facebook and more than 56,000 followers on Twitter.[7]

She also met famous people face to face, put all these things about her together and she is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, those things do not make her notable. Do you know how many people have thousands of friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter? Woopie do, that doesn't make them notable. Nor does meeting famous people - common, unnotable folks do it every day. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well she was the oldest person to be using BOTH, besides the famous people think shes notable and they will remember her. Longevitydude (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shes the oldest person to use both twitter AND facebook, shes the oldest twitter user, and combine that with everything else said about her and she is notable, a lot of people agree that she IS notable, not everyone has to agree for her to be notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so what? Being the oldest to use either or both is nothing but trivia, at best, and not anywhere near close to being a factor for notability. And a lot of people seem to agree that she is not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well a lot of people agree that she IS notable. Longevitydude (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should be more tolerant about what other people consider notable and wikipedia is the FREE encyclopedia, yet I don't see a lot of people being free to be interested in stuff they consider notable you act like just because your not interested that no one else is allowed to be. Longevitydude (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If she hasn't had sufficient coverage, then I don't know how much IS sufficient. Longevitydude (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZf8MSdBHdQ

She is even considered one of the famous deaths, shes famous, a celebrity, and notable. Longevitydude (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She could have all of the news outlets in the world reporting her Internet story and that still wouldn't be enough as it fails WP:ONEEVENT. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage shows that its a notable event. Longevitydude (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was a celebrity so shes notable we have well enough cyberspace available and not enough light-hearted entries, that'll make this worthwhile. The old lady was a niche-celebrity, granted, but I have seen entries in Wiki that are absolutely unworthy of any consideration and yet are unchallenged in their position. Give the lady a break, I say. Longevitydude (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC) There are articles of far less importance that are happily kept on WP. Just because x% of people have no interest in a particular subject or person doesn't mean that it should be deleted, since perhaps x+1% of WP users are interested but don't say anything. Bear in mind that this lady's notability couild be measured by a relatively high number of Facebook friends. Not a big thing as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but will respectable in that particular community. Also remember than many of her contemporary fans (of whom there are probably not many) will not be computer literate and thus may not be savvy enough to sign up for Wikipedia and argue the case for retaining the article.[reply]

Who are we to foresee who will and will not be remembered in the future? I found the link to Ivy's article from the front page, where there is a Recent Deaths link, which lists every death that WP users see fit to record. Will anyone care about the majority of the people on there in 50 years? The same argument for deleting this article could be used about the entire Recent Deaths category in some people's opinion. In addition, will someone in the US really be bothered about some 70s soccer player's bio or an Irish snooker player? Longevitydude (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People whose lives (as opposed to Internet useage) are truly notable will always be notable and will still generate interest in hundred years time. People like Julius Caesar, Henry VIII, Da Vinci, Mozart, Napolean, Churchill, Lennon. In one hundred years time, actually in hundred days time this woman will have been forgotten and the next news report of an 80 year old monkey being a Go champion will be the article of hot topic. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary She will always be notable no matter how many people remember her, there are a lot of people on wikipedia that hardly anyone pays attention to, but they still have their notability. Longevitydude (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I really wanted to !vote "delete" here, but after looking at the sources, I have to go with keep. Regarding the arguments that she has not really done anything of note - well, I learned quite a while ago not to pass judgement on what other people consider notable. As long as there is considerable coverage by mainstream respectable news-outlets, the subject is notable. We should not substitute our value judgement for that of the sources. In this case we have plenty of mainstream coverage (BBC, NPR, etc). Regarding WP:NOTNEWS argument - that argument would apply if we were dealing with one brief spike of coverage lasting a few days or a few weeks. In this case, significant coverage spreads over the period of several years, from 2008 (e.g. here[2][3][4] ) to 2009 (e.g.[5][6][7] ) to 2010, including coverage in 2010 before her death, e.g. [8][9][10]. The coverage is not only national, but also international, e.g. NRP[11], Times of India[12], Sydney Morning Herald[13] (all these are from well before her death). Given the geographical and chronological spread of coverage, this is not a WP:NOTNEWS case. Now, regarding WP:BLP1E argument. First, since she is no longer alive, the thing to cite here is WP:BIO1E rather than WP:BLP1E. Second, and more importantly, this is an example of a frequent misinterpretation of both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. These principles do tell us to cover the even if it is notable. In the case where notability of an event is significant and the event is essentially about a single person, we still, appropriately so, have articles about the notable events in question (such as various "murder of ..." articles. In this particular case, we might move the title to something like Oldest internet celebrity, but is there really much of a point in doing that? Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rational explanation, your response sums it all up. Longevitydude (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing that the topic isn't worhty of mentioning in an article about facebook/twitter for being the oldest recognised social networking user or an article about social networking and "extremes". What I and possibly the others are disputing is that why it is necessary to have a biography about somebody who used the Internet for two years and died when over a hundred years of their life is unencyclopedic. It still comes down to ONEEVENT and this is nothing but a news story that will die out within a few days. Do we have an article about the Rochdale bigot woman because she was the subject of a major controversy during the 2010 elections? No. We briefly mention it in a more suitable parent article as an event. This is no different. This is the event of an elderly Internet user who generated some fuss because she was so old and amazed people that she used the Internet. At best it should be summarised in a paragraph in articles about the social networking sites or social networking in general. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sig seems grotesquely unnecessary but we still have to suffer it wherever you post. If you or others don't want to read the article about this notable lady then it is comparatively easy to avoid. Note that it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and that it is not censored. Your outrage is therefore insufficient grounds for deletion. And your reference to ONEVENT is counterfactual as there are numerous separate events and the person in question is the focus of all of them, not an incidental bystander. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking me personally and explain why an encyclopedia should have an individual biography about a person who used the Internet for a small fraction of their life. That's what it comes down to. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are attacking the work of other editors, demanding that it be deleted and this is the case that requires justification. The notability of the topic has been well-established and no other valid policy-based reason has been put forward to justify such action. You seem to suggest that we should compare personal opinions of the topic. This proposal is quite contrary to core policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The only opinions that matter are those of independent, reliable sources and you have not provided any evidence to suggest that your personal opinion qualifies. As for your sig, this seems contrary to the relevant guideline. Please consider changing it as it is visually quite distracting and interferes with the editing of talk pages such as this by interposing multiple lines of sig markup. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing noticeable about my conservative signature. Dr. Blofeld ££££££££££ 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, wikipedia articles add to nobility and make the subjects more likely to be remembered longer. Longevitydude (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is in the eye of the beholder, and a lot of people think shes notable, why can't you respect that. Longevitydude (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The media made her a "star," and the coverage lasted several years, so the claim to "one event" is invalid. Surely if we can have an article on every player who ever player professional football, baseball, and soccer we can have an article on this woman who has been covered in the press for about six years.Ryoung122 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Dr. Blofield, your comments are seriously off. References to Mozart and Julius Caesar? Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. One does not have to be famous from birth and for their entire life to warrant an article. Grandma Moses only started painting as a very aged senior, yet achieved notability long before Wikipedia existed to judge. In this case, Ivy Bean was already noted when she was 98 and using Facebook.

Personally, I recognize this is a media-driven celebrity status, but that doesn't stop articles being created on Justin Bieber or Anna Nicole Smith. Additionally, we have people as "notable" as minor professional sports people who didn't do more than play backup in one or two games, ever. Yeah, that's notable too. Not really. So we are going to be so lax on the "youth" culture of sports, at least give people at the other end of the totem pole some respect/recognition.Ryoung122 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are seriously off? Really... Of course your judgement may not be biased given that you and Longevitydued are into Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People and gerontology/super old people... "Personally, I recognize this is a media-driven celebrity status". Exactly, and the world media dictates everything these days, even what is encyclopedic.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its Longevitydude, and the fact that a lot of people find it notable makes it notable, and if you don't think so then at least be kind enough to let the rest of us enjoy what were interested in, instead of acting like it's your business to tell others whats notable, we don't nominate stuff for deletion just because it doesn't interest us, we respect that there ARE people who think its notable and we let it be. Longevitydude (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article truly was notable and was not problematic, why then was this article nominated for deletion less than two hours after creation without allowing time for it to develop? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't notable then why is there so much opposition to this afd? Longevitydude (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think some people confuse an encyclopedia with the Guinness Book of records. They each have a different scope. --Sulmues (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Records and titles ARE notable. Longevitydude (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what records. This guy is a clear wp:oneevent. An encyclopedia cannot be extended to the person who produced the longest pencil or farted louder. That's why we have clear policies and as of now the guy fails several as the nominator and Dr. Blofeld have pointed out. --Sulmues (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woman you mean, Ivy was a lady! Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse being the oldest tweeter with producing the longest pencil, or farting the loudest. Longevitydude (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shes more than oneevent as an editor pointed out earlier. Longevitydude (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this editor said this. As long as there is considerable coverage by mainstream respectable news-outlets, the subject is notable. We should not substitute our value judgement for that of the sources. In this case we have plenty of mainstream coverage (BBC, NPR, etc). Regarding WP:NOTNEWS argument - that argument would apply if we were dealing with one brief spike of coverage lasting a few days or a few weeks. In this case, significant coverage spreads over the period of several years, from 2008 (e.g. here[2][3][4] ) to 2009 (e.g.[5][6][7] ) to 2010, including coverage in 2010 before her death, e.g. [8][9][10]. The coverage is not only national, but also international, e.g. NRP[11], Times of India[12], Sydney Morning Herald[13] (all these are from well before her death). Given the geographical and chronological spread of coverage, this is not a WP:NOTNEWS case. Now, regarding WP:BLP1E argument. First, since she is no longer alive, the thing to cite here is WP:BIO1E rather than WP:BLP1E. Second, and more importantly, this is an example of a frequent misinterpretation of both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. These principles do tell us to cover the even if it is notable. In the case where notability of an event is significant and the event is essentially about a single person, we still, appropriately so, have articles about the notable events in question (such as various "murder of ..." articles. In this particular case, we might move the title to something like Oldest internet celebrity, but is there really much of a point in doing that?

hes right, who are we to pass judgement on what others consider notable? Longevitydude (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the millionth time, respect what other people consider notable, we don't pass judgement on what you consider notable. Longevitydude (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to the comment about my vote - Being old and using a computer doesn't suggest notability but being really old, using a computer and having a really long and divisive AfD at Wikipedia suggests otherwise.--99.98.165.151 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1045158/Meet-Ivy-Bean--worlds-oldest-Facebooker-aged-102.html

heres an article that might help. Longevitydude (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She competed in the Bradford Over 75s' Olympics. Longevitydude (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is more notable... Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone noted above that this article says something about our times and I think it does. When today's teens and 20-somethings are 100 (if we're lucky) and using a computer it won't be anything out of the ordinary. Therefore the fact that newspapers even write about an old person using the computer is interesting from a historical point-of-view. I hope this article stays (already voted above) partly for this reason, but I also think she has received enough coverage according to Wikipedia guidelines. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are plenty number of articles about her.--CnkALTDSmessage 21:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A brief bit of media interest does not a notable person make. This "article" would be naught but an embarrassment to a serious encyclopedia, but hey this is Wikipedia! So carry on folks. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage has not been brief but has been sustained over several years and worldwide. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which only goes to show that the modern news media will fill their publications with all manner of shite. Does that mean Wikipedia has to mirror them? Or maybe we should aspire to do better? Lustralaustral (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All articles on wikipedia are a mirror of some sort of website or article, and lots of coverage DOES help confirm notability, and the more articles wikipedia has the more famous it will be. Longevitydude (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Though replace famous with infamous and you'd be closer to the mark. Lustralaustral (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia having more popularity would not be a bad thing, and no, deleting articles that lots of people think are notable would NOT attract people to wikipedia, it would more likely drive them away. Longevitydude (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are exactly the sort of people who should be driven away, and preferably taken outside and shot just to be sure. Lustralaustral (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information-seeking people should be "taken outside and shot"? If anyone I think you are the one that should go away. Jiiimbooh (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were not supposed to be driving people away, were supposed to be trying to make wikipedia more famous and popular, information seekers should be able to find what their looking for, but they can't do that if their being driven away by afds, deleting articles drives information seekers away and the fact that you would say something like Those are exactly the sort of people who should be driven away, and preferably taken outside and shot just to be sure. tells me a lot more about you than I wanna know. Longevitydude (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policies and guidelines cited by Lugnuts. — CIS (talk | stalk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Jay Leno even mentioned her death in his opening monologue on July 29, 2010. She has gained fame in multiple countries. There are a number of youtube celebrities that have pages not being considered for deletion. She has gained far more fame through the news and other media outlets. EditPin122 00:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, famous person, notability well-established by multiple sources. Everyking (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I originally said I had no opinion either way, but the death of this person is in the newspapers and TV shows (news and entertainment) in many different countries. If this article is deleted then we may as well reduce the number of biographies on wikipedia by 20% or so, as there are many other people who have undisputed articles on here with nowhere near the amount of international attention. Arnie Side (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least, she is currently a record holder.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Known worldwide, and a record holder. Zerbey (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per all reasons stated above in the 'Keep' section. Connormahtalk 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of July 30th, 22:44 GMT, there's 13 votes for Delete and 24 votes for Keep, and the discussion has been on for 48 hours. Should we call this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilduff90 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about arguments, not vote counting. And we have time. Hekerui (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One event does not make notability. Earlier, Longevitydude pointed to Ella Schuler, but the latter is different in that she is a supercentenarian, so she would have gotten an article regardless of her Facebook usage. howcheng {chat} 00:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using Facebook and Twitter is not an event, it's an activity. Most famous people are only or primarily known for one activity. For example Wayne Gretzky and Peter Forsberg are primarily well-known for playing ice hockey. 1EVENT would only be applicable if only her death was reported by the media. But as has been shown before, she received international coverage before her death. The reason the media reported her death was because she was already famous. So, 1EVENT is not applicable here, as she wasn't just famous for dying (an event) but for using Facebook and Twitter (an activity). Jiiimbooh (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS applies, and WP:BLP1E (in spirit if not in letter). This is a trivial passing news story, not an encyclopaedic article; I see no evidence that the subject has achieved lasting notability. (If they're still writing about her next year, or even next week, I'll change my mind.) Robofish (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I have to object to any arguments along the lines of 'being the oldest person on Twitter is automatic evidence of notability'. If that's an acceptable argument, then does that apply to any other activity? Should we have articles on the oldest person to drive a car, to write a novel, to play baseball, to practice law, or any number of other things? And should we have an article on the new oldest person on Twitter, and the next one after they die? My answer is no; notability is the outcome of significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and not simply being the oldest person to do something. Robofish (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys. How about we have a paragraph like this in both the Twitter and Facebook article. If you cut down the crap we are basically left with the following:

At the age of 102, Ivy Bean of Bradford, England joined Facebook in 2008, making her one of the oldest people ever on Facebook. An inspiration to other residents, she quickly became more widely known, and several fan pages were made in her honour. She visited Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah in Downing Street early in 2010. Some time after creating her Facebook page, Bean also joined Twitter, when she passed the maximum number of friends allowed by Facebook. She became the oldest person to ever use the Twitter website. At the time of her death, she had 4,962 friends on Facebook and more than 56,000 followers on Twitter. Her death was widely reported in the media and she received tributes from several notable media personalities.

Why is it not appropriate to redirect to either article and have a summary of it there? PLease examine this article closely, the info about her "working for Arthur Crossland, a local mill owner" and "talking about her care home and favourite meal" is embarrsingly unencyclopedic. If you stick to what is relevant here then the best thing would be to summarise her existence in either of the articles. Can anybody explain why acknowledging her and her status in the media in either articles without having an actual biography on her wouldn't be a better idea? As it is there is no mention of her on either article page which is wrong. The information about her being the oldest should be there as it is only notable because of the sites. She'd have been a nobody if it wasn't for those sites. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed an offensive comment from user 94.14.187.180 (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC) , but it was a vote for delete. Arnie Side (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added summary paragraphs to the bottom of each article although some spam filter on facebook page is currently preventing me from fixing a ref problem. if you read these summaries and now look at this article am I the only one who thinks having a biogrpahy about her is redundant? I've stated what she was famous for and her status in both communities and the media. Isn't this enough? Just remember that we are supposed to be an encyclopedia and should only focus on what is relevant. Details about her working for a mill and talking about her carehome are not encyclopedic material. She was famous for one thing, using those websites. I concur that she has had enough coverage to make it relevant to add a section in both Twitter and Facebook as being the oldest user and that she was renowned for that so why can't what is important here be written in either article and this directed? The article as it is reminds me of a memorial and that people want to keep this to fondly remember somebody being so old and using a computer. "She had worked for Arthur for about 18 years when sadly, he passed away and she decided it was time to retire". Is it for an encyclopedia to get all emotional and say "sadly, he passed away". C'mon folks see this for what it is. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is which article the redirect should point to. If we redirect it to Facebook, readers won't notice if the text about her is updated in the Twitter article. If this is closed as a merge-and-redirect probably only one of the articles, we call this Article 1, should have the full text about her and the other article, Article 2, should have a link to the relevant section of Article 1. Jiiimbooh (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "oldest survivors" from various wars/events become notable for no other reason than that their longevity and the subsequent media interest makes them so. This woman was no different to that, she made the news in the UK. --Zagrebo (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep per reasons above. --T1980 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Glossing over the relatively minor technicality that she is dead ("minor technicality" as BLP policy does generally apply to the recently deceased), there is no basis for arguing WP:BLP1E here, and I will make my point using every part of it. Firstly, she is notable for two things, being the oldest person to join Facebook, and being the oldest person to join Twitter. The fact that the former did not remain the case is irrelevant per WP:NTEMP. I accept that some might consider this to be a technicality, hence my decision to continue. Secondly, nobody can dispute that throughout her last few years (not just after her death) she received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. By definition, that means that she was not a low-profile individual. Thirdly, let's take the following section:

Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate.

I doubt anyone is going to argue that merging the jist of the story into the Twitter and Facebook articles will help prevent undue weight? There is no question that Ivy Bean's role in these events was substantial. There is a legitimate debate as to whether these events are significant. While not on its own a strong enough justification to keep, the indication from the numbers in this !vote is that a majority of editors consider the events to be notable. Fourthly:

The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Going back to question two, it is undeniable that the coverage of Bean, and the fact that she was the oldest to do these things, has been given persistent coverage in reliable sources. Some might wish that she hadn't, but alas, she has.
In summary, I see no policy-based opposition. I have therefore !voted to keep on the grounds that Ivy Bean passes the WP:GNG, which for the purposes of AfD is usually considered to be a de-facto policy. --WFC-- 09:39, 1 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ivy_Bean&oldid=1179844119"