| Revision as of 00:31, 17 August 2007 editDachande (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users782 editsm →no consensus?← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:52, 17 August 2007 edit undoBart Versieck (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,276 edits Undid revision 151717307 by Dachande (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| :Well, AfD is not a vote, that's why. But that discussion was 10 months ago. Old history. ] 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | :Well, AfD is not a vote, that's why. But that discussion was 10 months ago. Old history. ] 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thank you. ] 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Thank you. ] 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Concensus usually means everyone eventually agress. | |||
| == What about the other claims? == | == What about the other claims? == | ||
Revision as of 00:52, 17 August 2007
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
I disagree with the statement that 'this article does not cite its sources.' There is a link to the GRG page and a citation of a newspaper article. 65.81.27.35 15:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Year of Marriage?
The article currently claims 1893 as the year of Ms. Parker's birth and 1911 as the year of her marriage, making her approximately 18 when she was married. At this age, however, the article also states that she had been teaching for "several years" and had been pursuing a degree in education. Was it conceivable to have had several years of teaching experience by age 18 during the early 1900s? --74.241.103.221 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed the same thing, and it doesn't seem to make sense to me either. It should either be re-worded, or the phenomenon of teenagers teaching school in the early 20th century should be explained. OlYeller 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a reporter's mistake. She was married in 1913.Ryoung122 06:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!
I find the subject of oldest living people somewhat macabre, but I've just been reading the AfD on Edna Parker's article back in October 2006 when she was merely 7th oldest. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker. I found it ironic that people then were talking of a moving target, and how she might one day become the oldest person in the world. Well, what do you know... Carcharoth 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
no consensus?
The vote was 6-2 in favor of "Keep" this article, but the conclusion was "no consensus?" How's that? OlYeller 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, AfD is not a vote, that's why. But that discussion was 10 months ago. Old history. Carcharoth 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. OlYeller 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
What about the other claims?
Do we mention other claims, or not? See and . Carcharoth 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- NO! When there is clear and convincing evidence, Guinness has taken titles back to give to someone older (i.e. Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan replaced Charlotte Benkner). However, a mere unsubstantiated claim is not worth mentioning; they exist all the time and never go away.Ryoung122 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Just mentioning the other claims. This one has some mention of church records. I suppose in the next century, documenting these claims will be easier, using modern records. Carcharoth 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming such modern records actually survive into the next century. It's surprising how short a 20-year retention policy seems when compared to people's lives :). --Stestagg 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Just mentioning the other claims. This one has some mention of church records. I suppose in the next century, documenting these claims will be easier, using modern records. Carcharoth 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)