12.144.5.2 (talk) →Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian): Keep.(Delete JJBulten!!) |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Also, the assertion that Rejuvenation Research is "unreliable" is little than a smear. It is a highly-qualified outside source. It is not published by the GRG, but sometimes publishes material from the GRG.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
Also, the assertion that Rejuvenation Research is "unreliable" is little than a smear. It is a highly-qualified outside source. It is not published by the GRG, but sometimes publishes material from the GRG.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep!''' More broadly,those of us who contribute to the GRG,to the IDL,to Rejuvenation Research,to the SRF and Planck-Institute meetings,etc. are '''the most reliable sources in the world''' on supercentenarians,and JJB can not credibly represent that any higher standard of scholarship on the subject exists.--Louis E./[[Special:Contributions/12.144.5.2|12.144.5.2]] ([[User talk:12.144.5.2|talk]]) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:23, 12 December 2010
Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian)
- Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian) (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 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as nom 3-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are unreliable RejRes (GRG-authored), GRG, and OHB. Nonnotability and citation lack already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. Neptune5000 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, there's no reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Until and if your proposed guideline is adopted as policy, it should carry no weight in a deletion discussion. People are welcome to agree or disagree with it as they please, but anyone who disagrees with it is entitled to express their opinion in this AfD, whether or not they choose to comment on the proposal itself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Was the recognised oldest living person in the world and oldest person in the UK at one time. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Keep. Wiki policy on WOP's generally recognizes them as notable, as there is coverage worldwide.
There is also the option to "merge" to List of UK supercentenarians until the article is expanded. Deletion is not a correct outcome. There are several flaws in the pro-deletion argument:
--notability is not established by whether the article is sourced, but by whether reliable sources exist. Therefore, the first thing to do is to tag the article and notify the article creator that more sources are needed. Usually we give the article creator about a month, before an article is nominated for deletion. This did not happen here.
--JJBulten violated Wiki policies and guidelines, including voting on his own nomination and posting the same message to several different AFD discussions. It also appears that these nominations were in violation of WP:POINT.
As Elizabeth Watkins was recognized on the world scale as the world's oldest person, and citable coverage exists, the article should be kept, even if tagged as a stub and given time for cleanup.Ryoung122 16:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. This case was featured in Guinness World Records in the 1970s and kept many years as the longevity recordholder for Northern Ireland.
Also, the assertion that Rejuvenation Research is "unreliable" is little than a smear. It is a highly-qualified outside source. It is not published by the GRG, but sometimes publishes material from the GRG.Ryoung122 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep! More broadly,those of us who contribute to the GRG,to the IDL,to Rejuvenation Research,to the SRF and Planck-Institute meetings,etc. are the most reliable sources in the world on supercentenarians,and JJB can not credibly represent that any higher standard of scholarship on the subject exists.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)