| Revision as of 20:02, 6 December 2010 editDHanson317 (talk | contribs)9,937 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:57, 6 December 2010 edit undoJohn J. Bulten (talk | contribs)12,763 edits →Margaret SkeeteNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Delete''' The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. ] (]) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. ] (]) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' 115 is notable as hardly anyone has reached it and she is 15th overall. ] (]) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' 115 is notable as hardly anyone has reached it and she is 15th overall. ] (]) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Reply''': DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be ]. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of ''seven WP lists already'', which is still excessive. ] 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:57, 6 December 2010
Margaret Skeete
- Margaret Skeete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as nom 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep 115 is notable as hardly anyone has reached it and she is 15th overall. DHanson317 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)