Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucile Randon

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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucile Randon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Lucile Randon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, just like many other longevity pages, is purely unnecessary. Out of four paragraphs, one is only one sentence, one is pure statistics, one is life information, and one is about her COVID-19 infection. Her article can be easily merged and made into a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would say this fails WP:BIO, under WP:BASIC, because its just trivial coverage of a person, focused entirely on two elements - their long life, and their survival of COVID-19. Unless someone could examine the article's subject some more - background, history, other notable elements (beyond those covered) - I don't think this article is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia.GUtt01 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changed my mind on this, based on a good point in this discussion by Furius. Apart from being a good stub, I think the concern is for the lede of the article and a couple of sentences, which could just be amended and changed since they do appear to be original research without appropriate citations. GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles cited on the page easily pass WP:GNG and she is the second oldest person in the world. There are plenty more sources and there is plenty more information about her life on the fr.wiki page. Furius (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I might not want to read up about a person who has lived a long life, I would say that, regardless of this, such an article would only really be worth the mustard of notability, if there was more on the subject themselves, beyond being the longest-living person (regardless of first or second in that respect). Other than being the oldest to survive COVID-19, I would expect a bit more than this on the article:
What was their occupation?
What was their life like?
Did they make other achievements?
Did they witness significant events in their life?
Not having such details just doesn't make the article notable enough. Without that personal life information and maybe some other worthwhile information to make such an achievement seem more notable than it sounds as it is, it hardly seems right to have this article exist on the merits of being a person who lived longest/second-longest, and survived against COVID. GUtt01 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(a) All of this is covered in the French wiki article, supported by reliable sources - she was a governess to the Peugeot family and others in the 1910s, converted to Catholicism and became a nun in 1923, and worked in hospitals in that capacity from 1945 until 1979. (b) The point is that there are multiple reliable sources in English and in French for this figure, so it passes GNG and is notable. You can't just create new criteria for notability and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Furius (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a second check of the article, I think the grounds for deletion just got eroded by your argument.GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about deleting it completely - I agree that the subject is notable. Too notable to be deleted, but not notable enough for a standalone article. There's nothing in the article that can't be merged into a mini-bio (similar to what's there already in the article, just in a section of the page List of French supercentenarians). As for the French wiki article, why, I might change my mind if you translated that French to English! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you find some translator program or webservice on the internet? GUtt01 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the French article and, apart from a few facts, there's basically nothing that isn't already in her article here. MattSucci (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don’t we add those facts? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that info regarding the name and occupation of her father and details of her sister are necessary. MattSucci (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's called padding. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:35, 19 August 2021 (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/Lucile_Randon&oldid=1040426006"