Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Rearden

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 merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Nakon 02:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Rearden

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not clear whether she is notable or not. The three non-GRG sources here describe her entire notability on the mistaken (at that time) belief that she was the oldest African-American and oldest living American at the time of her death. Now, the GRG 'verified' Weaver's information in July 2014 (see Gertrude_Weaver's page) which is the only detail for the header. I'm not certain that someone who in fact at best the second oldest living American and second oldest living African-American (and I think 4th oldest living person) is really notable based on sources that would almost be WP:ROUTINE if the oldest person had died. She's basically a footnote to Weaver's article it seems. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB298 (talk • contribs)

What? @MB298:, which criteria are you saying this falls under? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to North American list, per WP:NOPAGE, there being little or nothing worth saying about his uneventful life. 'When asked how it feels being one of the world's oldest living persons, Rearden replied: "I don't know how it makes me feel. I really don't know."' -- oh, brother! EEng (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is WP:EXTREMELY UNNOTEWORTHY --♥Golf (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Notable person, but not much contend for a stand-alone article. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Everything that's notable about this subject can be accommodated by the list. As noted above, all of the rest of the details in the article are routine and trivial. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. David in DC (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. The coverage that I see/can find for this individual indicates some measure of notability, but not the need for a stand-alone page. Canadian Paul 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the 2nd oldest living American and the oldest person ever from the state of South Carolina have enough notability. Bertha van Hasselt (107, oldest person in the Netherlands for only 4 days) page is should be deleted than this article.----Inception2010 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Per your suggestion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertha van Hasselt. EEng (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you think that. Now, can you provide some policy-based reason that anyone else should think it? This isn't decided by !votes. David in DC (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2016 (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.