Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Stelloo
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 delete. Tone 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martha Stelloo
- Martha Stelloo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-orphaned, minimally-edited article created by her grandson. Fails V, N, and OR. Assumes inherited notability as well, and even the Guinness entry is dubious - at the least, it was subsequently withdrawn from their records, probably with good cause. Another editor's more copious research into the notability (or lack thereof) can be found on the article's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I should have made an "articles for deletion" page myself instead of going on and on on the talk page, but it was meant as a short note and grew longer the more I learned about Lord Sydney. Afasmit (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Strong Delete- this appears to be a hoax.--keystoneridin! (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Claims for notability are flimsy at best. McMarcoP (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced article about actress and rewrite as article about the record-breaking documentary. Guinness World Records 2005 (page 175) confirms film as "longest film documentary" ISBN 1892051222, no matter that later versions removed the entry to add records about other items. Seattle Times confirms the Guiness entry. Suggest new article title of Grandmother Martha (1996 Dutch film), as the film has the sourcable record notability, not {apparently) the film's subject. I just sandboxed (above) my suggested alternate article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guinness shelved the claim, and the Seattle Times article merely recapitulates what it was - it isn't independent coverage (not that this would be needed - the Guinness book itself is source enough that it was once a record). In any case, it's long-standing precedent that a Guinness record is not notable enough in and of itself. There is absolutely no record I can even find of this having played anywhere or received any reviews - essentially the only evidence that it exists is a Guinness record which the book's publishers have subsequently declined to reprint, mostly likely for a reason. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. When a record is broken, it is replaced by a new record. On a related sidebar, the filmmaker, Sydney Ling, himself set and kept for 23 years, the Guiness record for being the youngest youngest person (at 13) to direct a professional feature film. The record was broken in 2006 by a 10-year-old. Perhaps in not only honoring his grandmother, Ling wanted to set another guiness record, and this might well have received coverage unavailable to me. Perhaps French or Dutch Wikipedians will come forward with non-English sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guinness shelved the claim, and the Seattle Times article merely recapitulates what it was - it isn't independent coverage (not that this would be needed - the Guinness book itself is source enough that it was once a record). In any case, it's long-standing precedent that a Guinness record is not notable enough in and of itself. There is absolutely no record I can even find of this having played anywhere or received any reviews - essentially the only evidence that it exists is a Guinness record which the book's publishers have subsequently declined to reprint, mostly likely for a reason. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (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.