Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination)

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The result was keep per nomination withdrawn Valoem talk contrib 14:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knauss

AfDs for this article:
Sarah Knauss (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)

Recommend delete and merge to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE. Omitting information on who was the oldest before her, after her, during her, over her, under her, and so on, reads in its entirety:

Sarah DeRemer Knauss (née Clark; September 24, 1880 – December 30, 1999) was an American supercentenarian. Of her death, state senator Charlie Dent, who had attended her 115th birthday in 1995, said "Mrs. Knauss was an extraordinary woman who pushed the outer limits of longevity. This is a sad occasion, but she certainly had an eventful life."

The senator was just making that up, of course. As an added bonus, several or most of the sources are non-RS or copyvios.

Special note: Ms. Knauss herself has !voted, from beyond the grave (as it were), for the deletion of her own (and other similar) articles. According to [1]:

She became the world's oldest person in 1998 upon the death of Marie-Louise Febronie Meilleur of Quebec, who was 117. But when her family members walked her into the dining room to tell her of her new fame, she smiled and said: "So what?"

EEng (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn to allow my fellow editors to try to find more substance to include in the article. EEng (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just noticed this edit [2] from a few hours ago. Before someone says that other editor and I were acting in concert: we weren't. And presence of the deleted material wouldn't have changed my NOPAGE recommendation. EEng (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! Earwig's copy violation detector Sarah Knauss I would say that the copy violations are easily cured and are by themselves no reason to delete. Her sole claim to fame, I gather, is super longevity. Listing of others must exist somewhere, and could be added to the article if that would help. She is #2 on List of the verified oldest people, and almost all of those have an article. She is the oldest verified American super centarian, if that list is to be believed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make myself clear -- the article links to [3] as a source, and that link is a blatant copyvio of a newspaper article; our article's shouldn't carry such links. As to your other point, yes, there's also List of supercentenarians from the United States, and since apparently there's nothing at all to say about Ms. Knauss, the right thing to do is redirect to that list, where she can be seen in context with other similar people. EEng (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated link to website that is violation of The Morning Call's copyright. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work fixing the cites, but you're missing the point of the nomination. Most nominations are based on questions about the subject's notability, but here the question the one posed at WP:NOPAGE:
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
My point is that (as with most of these long-lived people) there's actually very little to say about their lives, so it's best to make them "part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context" i.e. in a list article along with other long-livers DOB, DOD, place of birth/death, and so on. Where there's a bit more to say or a photo, the list articles have "mini-bios" as well. EEng (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my note to 7&6. This has nothing to do with notability or coverage. EEng (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would be added to "create an appropriately substantial article" (which it obviously isn't now)? EEng (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Nothing needs to be added. Don't make me copy the full text of the article into this talk page. Alansohn (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But all it says about her is what I quoted in the nomination. Everything else is about other people (who was the "titleholder" before and after her, etc.) and would be apparent to the reader when looking at Knauss in an appropriate list article. EEng (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Nothing needs to be added. Don't make me copy the full text of the article into this talk page. I'll Do it. Don't make me. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But all it says about her is what I quoted in the nomination. Everything else is about other people (who was the "titleholder" before and after her, etc.) and would be apparent to the reader when looking at Knauss in an appropriate list article. So instead of copying the article here, could you explain how the reader's understanding of the subject is enhanced by repeating in a standalone article the stuff about who was the record-holder just before and after her, which would be apparent in a list article anyway? EEng (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have gotten much more limited in our coverage of supercentenarians over the years, but deleting the article on someone who actually has been the verifiable world's oldest person is carrying things to the level of utter absurdity. I was asked to do a speedy keep on the basis of obviousness (actually, it would better be a snow keep) but I don't like to do this in the presence of good-faith opposition from someone known here for generally good judgment. (opposition from a spa would be very much another matter). So I will just urge my friend EEng to take overnight to think about it, and reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Gracious! I had no idea I was held in such "generally" high esteem in the corridors of power. And since I'm also generally known for my impish and endearing sense of humor, you'll forgive my inserting the image at right. Now then, to the matter at hand!
I'd like to draw attention, again, to this bit of NOPAGE:
There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
As a parallel I'd readily agree that every pharaoh is notable, but one can easily believe (hypothetical -- I've got no idea about pharaohs) that there may be some about whom so little is known that there's no point in a standalone article about them -- an entry in a list, with dates of reign, parentage, and whatnot, might present him better than a tiny standalone, since in a list the reader can at least see how he fits in chronologically and so on, which would be obscured in a standalone. Same thing here.
In light of your gracious request, I'll indeed think about this overnight, but likely in the morning I'll be looking to see if anyone's added anything to the article about the subject (not fancruft about other "titleholders") which would better justify a standalone. In return, I hope you'll reconsider as well, with a focus on NOPAGE instead of N.
Thought while showering... Finally, take a look at [4], which explains in more detail my thoughts on lists and "minibios" for long-livers about whom there isn't really much to say. EEng (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. Have you visited the Museums lately?[reply]
But especially for someone who was the second oldest person EVER, it would actually be easier to present all the "important information" together in one place. Otherwise, you'd have to look at several different lists to find out when she was the world's oldest person, her ranking among the oldest people ever, when she was America's oldest person, and so on. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An additional column in the list could easily accommodate such information. Or if it's too bulky for that, a minibio (with picture), per this discussion [5]. BTW, her comment about "So what?" would be a perfect caption for the picture. EEng (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair bit to say about her? What? Where? EEng (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Dead horse. It's snowing in December. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Four comments in fifteen hours on a wee early Sunday morning is hardly a snowstorm. Let's see what other editors think. EEng (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five Keeps; you miscounted. But its your show. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn doesn't count. ;) EEng (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, before this comment, this AfD had been edited 33 times, 14 of them (more than 40% of all edits) by you. You've repeated your usual arguments in the nomination and then repeated them ad nauseum with every single participant in this AfD. Why not just come up with a valid argument in your next nomination, make it your best possible argument, and then let the Wikipedia community participate as they see fit without the same constant repetition. Try it. Once. See how it works. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination like this one -- based not on notability, as is usual, but on the NOPAGE question of whether or not to have a standalone article -- is unfamiliar to most editors at AfD, and so (not surprisingly) many editors have trouble understanding it. Often editors don't actually read the nomination text, just looking at the article to judge its sources for notability purposes -- witness the posts here (most recently Nathan's, below) speaking, irrelevantly, to notability. Thus it seems necessary to draw other editors' attention to the actual question at hand.
Some 80% of the longevity nominations in the last three months (and essentially all of those made by me personally) have ended in Delete, Merge, Redirect, etc., so it's hard to take seriously your plea that I "come up with a valid argument" in my next nomination. I'm doing just fine without your advice, thanks!
EEng (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand nominating relatively non-notable 110 year olds or whatever for deletion, but this is the second oldest person EVER, the oldest American ever, and a former world's oldest person. Generally speaking on Wikipedia, if someone passes WP:GNG (this person clearly does) then they are deserving of their own article. WP:NOPAGE is a more useful guideline for dealing with Characters in a TV show, or members of a band, where they are all notable for being part of a more-widely notable topic. On the other hand, supercentenarians are all individual people, living in different parts of the world at different times. Longevity is a very broad topic, so I fail to see how NOPAGE can be applied in this instance. Instead, this nomination just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "longevity is a very broad topic" has to do with anything, and please cut out the tired "smacks of IDONTLIKEIT", which I guess you could say about anything negative anyone says about anything. I've been hoping someone would add something to the article so it said more about the subject than what little's already there, but so far, nothing. EEng (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE says "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes." ---> If we're talking about (as I say above) characters in a TV show or members of a band, it might make more sense to include mini-articles on them on pages about the TV show or the band itself, as they're all closely connected by one specific topic. On the other hand, what connects supercentenarians? Longevity. But longevity is a much wider topic than a TV show, and all supercentenarians are different people who otherwise have nothing in common. It therefore makes sense to have individual biographies for them, at least in the case when we're dealing with people who were once the "world's oldest person" or the oldest person ever from a nation.
Your nominations don't actually seem to explain how deleting these articles makes the topic more understandable. Instead, it's just you complaining that there's "nothing worthwhile or interesting" in the articles. I've explained above that the information about this person is more easily viewed in a standalone article, where the information is in one place, than in a multitude of separate lists. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Putting what little there is to say about her (and that excludes mindnumbing fancruft like "Knauss is the second-oldest fully documented person ever, behind Jeanne Calment. She was the last verified living person to have been born before 1885. At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder, then thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). It is now believed that the record should have been held by Lucy Hannah (1875–1993), who died aged 117 years and 248 days in 1993. In any case, Knauss extended the United States longevity record to age 119. Knauss was the second fully validated person in history to reach age 118 and 119 (the first being Calment in 1993 and 1994, respectively). She came within 33 hours of having lived in three different centuries.") in a minibio, where she can be seen in the context of others like her, is a much better way to understand about these people -- together, side by side -- then by clicking through scores of trivial articles. It could all be in one place, just not disconnected from everything else. EEng (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All that information that you call "mindnumbing fancruft" I would consider interesting and completely relevant to the topic, as would many others I imagine. You've just proven my point yet again: this all about your own opinion that longevity is not interesting. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That X lived to be Y years old is obviously central. When that fact was established ("At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder"), and the confusion about the records of two other people who have nothing to do with X ("thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). It is now believed that the record should have been held by Lucy Hannah (1875–1993), who died aged 117 years and 248 days in 1993") is just fancruft. "She was the last verified living person to have been born before 1885" -- so she's the last born before 1885 -- so what? Who was last born before 1884? 1886? What does any of that have to do with anything? As to "She came within 33 hours of living in three centuries" -- you must be joking. EEng (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence is not necessary. Otherwise, it's all perfectly valid, relevant information. You've become so prejudiced towards this topic area because of the actions of a few so-called "fanboys" that you're deluding yourself. Look around you, the consensus amongst most other editors here - just like at other recent AfD discussions for world's oldest person articles - is in favour of keeping these articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the fact that her lifespan almost touched three separate centuries puts into larger perspective the remarkable extent of her longevity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't in question -- please read the nomination again and comment in that light. EEng (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep respect your elders (snow). Valoem talk contrib 04:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This source Merrill, Gary F. (February 3, 2015). Our Aging Bodies. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813575261. Retrieved December 7, 2015. shows she complies with WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does notability have to do with NOPAGE? EEng (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is the question. And WP:GNG is the answer. Your bare assertion is only that. Ipse dixit? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you haven't actually read NOPAGE:
Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
Notability isn't, and has never been, in question. The question is how to best present what little info there is about her. EEng (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have rules and guidelines. Apparently you have not actually bothered to read the sources in this article as it now exists. To be sure, there is more that could be said about her, and the existing sources support that. Others will carry this further.
But your insistence on one leaf (rule) in wikipedia does not make the tree or the forest (the purpose of the project; the rest of its rules) disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What other rules are you talking about? The question here is whether the subject, clearly notable, should have a standalone article or not. NOPAGE is the guideline for that. What other guideline would you bring in? Contrary to what you say, I certainly did read the sources (those that were in the article at the time of the nomination) plus made a quick check via Google. So far the new sources have added nothing substantive about her, just more fancruft like "she was 33 hours from living in 3 centuries" (not correct, actually, since 2001 was the start of the new century -- makes you kinda wonder about the source).
Anyway, your forest-leaves analogy is an apt one. It's better to present these people, in most cases, in an integrated article (a "forest") where they can all be seen side by side, than in a bunch of scattered, trivial standalones ("trees" or maybe even "leaves"). EEng (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But your insistence on one leaf (a sentence in one rule) in wikipedia does not make the tree (the rest of the rule, and the article and subject which stand on their own) or the forest (the purpose of the project; the rest of its rules) disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You keep stating that self-obvious abstract truism. But what sentence, what rest of rule are you talking about??? EEng (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Jacona (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that again. Perhaps you can answer the question. EEng (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere strenuous repetition and intensity is no substitute for substance. Perhaps you need to reread the rest of WP:NOPAGE, rather than giving us the expurgated version. In any event, I will concede that reasonable minds may differ; hence this discussion. But in doing so I do not waiver from my position that you are wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong about what? Instead of speaking in riddles, why don't you say what other passage you think bears on this? EEng (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is a mere guideline that suggests that one ought to use editorial judgment in deciding where information ought to go. It does not command the elimination of particular pages. In any event, it is clear that there is none so blind as those who will not see. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about "commanding"?; the point of this discussion is make the judgment NOPAGE says to make. I agree there is none blind etc., to which I reply: two gloves do not a hat make. So if you're done reciting random proverbs, will you have time to point to this mysterious other part of NOPAGE you've keep talking about? EEng (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The keep !votes are not following what EEng has been stating. Yes, she has a source or two that ID her as one of the oldest living persons. And that's it. Her name comes up as "second in line" (of sorts) for other oldest living persons, but that's not equating to significant coverage. She obviously should be listed among a list of oldest living persons (having had been one), but what little there can actually be written about her directly (not in relationship to any other oldest person) is far too short for an article. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are confusing failure to agree with failure to understand. That aside, are you asserting that it's impossible to produce a properly sourced biographical article on the subject? Ravenswing 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm seeing what EEng has rightfully argued against what the keep !votes are presuming the argument is. And I am asserting that is impossible to produce a sourced biological article that weights on most information coming from secondary sources, as we expect for all articles. (Some primary may be needed to establish things like high school, etc.) And as EEng has shown, very few of the given sources are secondary, as they only mention her name in passing. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Received extensive coverage in the media, as the then "World's oldest person" and still the second oldest person ever. This extensive coverage supports the need for a standalone article.Bodgey5 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets every requirement for a standalone article in WP:GNG. 16 other language Wikipedias have found her notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What other wikis under WMF do is not of interest to en.wiki, though if those articles have more significant coverage in sources, we should be using them here. However, the GNG is not met as there is no significant coverage. Being one of the oldest living persons is a fact, but it is not coverage. The person did little else in their live to be notable beyond living to an old age, which technically also fails WP:BLP1E. Incorporating her into a table of the oldest known living persons keeps the little information about here in summary with other such people and provides better context (replacing all those trivial notes of who she succeeded and who succeeded her). --MASEM (t) 19:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
119 years is very long for "one event", don't you think? I don't know what article you're looking at, but I see 15 sources included in this article. This person easily passed WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The one event is the moment she outlived the previously oldest person. And not all sources are equal - we do not judge by quantity but by quality, and as EEng has repeated pointed out, all but a couple are mentions of her name in passing and thus do not contribute towards the GNG. Of those that do cover her in more depth, they give very little beyond beyond beyond one of the oldest people in the world at one point. It might just trip being okay by the GNG, but as pert WP:NOPAGE we are not required to have a article on every GNG-passing topic, and as EEng has pointed out, having her listed in a table among all other 100+yr persons would be more comprehensive than a standalone where you have to use 15 sources to identify her place in that line. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And when she became the oldest American? And the second-oldest ever? That's already three events. Regardless, this is not the kind of person that the "one event" guideline covers. Longevity is an integral part of the person, not an event. And as I've explained above, it makes sense to have all of her longevity-related achievements listed in one place, and in any case, what's wrong with having a bit of extra information on this person? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule-Team Keep: Oh for pity's sake. Passes the GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote. I understand that EEng is waving around NOPAGE! with all the force and furor that your average American Republican politician screams "Liberal! Liberal! Liberaaaaalll!!" -- as if the mere word is a trump card that automatically supersedes all other considerations or arguments -- but sooner or later the fact must be faced that it's not that we don't understand his argument, we don't agree with it. The Knauss article is, I freely concede, poorly written and longer on irrelevant blather than on encyclopedic fact, but that's a content dispute, not an appropriate issue for AfD. Ravenswing 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, comparing me to Republicans -- now there's a personal attack! Unfortunately, the fact that you think that "passes GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote" make any sense shows that you, still, aren't reading NOPAGE, or GNG for that matter, which say:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. (GNG)
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. (NOPAGE)
Clearly, GNG isn't all "she" (whoever she may be) wrote. EEng (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing you've summed up the situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People very well. The "NOPAGE" issue could have been resolved with one discussion/RfC/new guideline, but instead there's been a chaotic spate of AfD's of just about every supercentenarian possible. You'd have thought that these AfD's [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] would have shown quite clearly that wider consensus is in favour of keeping articles like this one, but apparently not. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think that, that is, unless you look at the other 70 recent AfDs closed as delete, merge, redirect, etc. EEng (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are any of those comparable to Sarah Knauss? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're fluffy longevity articles saying little about the subject, puffed up by minutiae of the timeline of verification e.g. meaningless events like belated recognition of who was the previous pre-1885 person to have been displaced for the title by someone who was mistakenly thought to be the current record holder except for... EEng (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @EEng, let's see if I can phrase this in terms unlikely to mistake. Yes, I have read NOPAGE. Yes, I have read your arguments. I do not agree with you. What about that is so hard to understand? I'm sorry (well, not that sorry) if you find the consensus against you bewildering, but it is obvious that many more editors reject your curious interpretation of that section as meaning "Any article that any one editor argues can be redirected into a broader topic must be redirected into a broader topic" than otherwise. I am among them. The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus runs against you. When it does, accept that fact and move on. Ravenswing 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of turning the page into a redirect is now 20 times longer then the article and contains about half as many facts as the article. The article has been heavily edited during the discussion so who knows what we are even discussing. Perhaps we should close this discussion down, let the editors who want to try to get this up to something that does not fail NOPAGE and then renominate for delete and redirect. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I withdraw the nomination for now. EEng (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming consensus -- before, during and after the article was expanded -- is that Knauss is unquestionably deserving of a standalone article. It's EEng who has accounted for 35% of the edits and has fluffed up the article with his endless repetition of the same rejected arguments he uses to attack nearly each and every editor who advocates for retention. The failure to recognize this consensus reflects poorly on the whole campaign against these articles. A speedy keep is the proper close at this point, though I anticipate further bad faith nominations in the near future. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still angry you couldn't get me blocked, it seems. I look forward to your popping up at various other discussions I'm participating in, though. Always entertaining. EEng (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious keep considering that this woman is the Oldest Verified American Person Ever. I'm thankful for the withdrawal of the AfD-nomination, perhaps you and your team could withdraw all nominations and refrain from making new ones? 930310 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussion should be closed as Wikipedia:Speedy keep in light of withdrawal. But as I said at the beginning of his overly long discussion WP:Snow was applicable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Knauss_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138340255"