Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely

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 Procedural Close. This debate was closed as a non-admin closure as Keep, and that seems to match the consensus here. But then, over a month later, the editor undid the close and relisted the debate. Meanwhile, a second debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely (2nd nomination) was closed as a redirect. So the result is that the article is redirected to List of Irish supercentenarians, and this can again be closed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Snavely (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)

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 19:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (and consider a merger, in part) to List of Irish supercentenarians. I would not be opposed to short capsule biographies in articles such as this, as are present in List of German supercentenarians. But I don't think the project is well-served by separate articles for by-country record holders. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being the oldest ever person from an entire nation is notable. Nominator has proposed a number of articles be deleted ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), including well sourced articles that clearly pass WP:GNG, for no reason other than "I just don't like it". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Ollie231213, and this. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) considered being the world's oldest woman overall (as opposed as to her, the world's oldest Irish emigrant) was insufficient for a separate article. She wasn't even the oldest Irish person but she was the oldest person who happened to be born in Ireland and left when she was 19 to the US. This is trivia. She's only been that person since perhaps 2012 but I would not say that we could justify similar articles about people who left Ireland in say the 1800s and lived a long time so the fact that she's the most recent winner of this cross-section of trivia doesn't make her notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. A redirect or merge to List of Irish supercentenarians might be a valid alternative if notability is the issue. clpo13_(talk) 20:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I realized that I gave my vote in haste, and mostly because of the fact that the nominator tagged many "long living" humans citing WP:NOTDIR. Taking into account the notability claimed in the article, as well as Wikipedia's policies, I believe that this person does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (perhaps WP:ANYBIO if the person won an award?), but this article also falls under WP:1E, in that this person (had she died at an average age) would have otherwise not been notable at all. All of the sources provided in the article, as well as other sources I found, only mention this person's death. As pointed out by Ricky81682, AfD's in the past have come to a consensus to delete articles of people just like this one. Per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, this person is notable. But, WP:1E is meant to be a check against people who pass the "notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote back to Keep. See comment above. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E as she is only notable for her age. Every source in the article is about her being the oldest Irish person. This fact is easily seen in the table at List of Irish supercentenarians, as is her name, age and country. A standalone article is not needed as it duplicates information already there. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Age and lifespan are not events they occur over time, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC is clearly established within Ireland. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Longevity is blatantly not one event. The sources about her being the oldest Irish person A) Confer notability and B) Give more details than just "she was the oldest Irish person ever", so there is more information than there is at List of Irish supercentenarians, again justifying a standalone article. Yet more attempts to destroy longevity-related articles by those involved in the WOP project WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thankfully uninvolved editors can see sense. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the WP:WOP guidelines for biographies. While there are several sources, look at the headlines for each of them. They are all about her being the oldest Irish person. So she is clearly only notable for her age (being the oldest from Ireland) and therefore belongs in a list and not a standalone article. Half this article is trivia about her longevity and the rest is pretty much a name, age and country. Not really much more than what is available in other longevity articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Keep. Article meets notability in my eyes, but it might be better overall to merge this with List of Irish supercentenarians due to its brevity and the fact that its notability is directly tied to Snavely being the oldest person from Ireland in her lifetime. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 19:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person ever from X country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator has not cited a specific policy in their justification as to why this article should be deleted. The article is well sourced, indicating that the person is notable. Bodgey5 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The oldest ever person from a country seems notable enough to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2015 (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.