Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. MBisanz ^talk 14:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Snavely

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB. Despite seven sources, nothing at all of any interest in the article: born, emigrated, lived, died, survived-by. Merge to list. EEng (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is notable enough to be on List of Irish supercentenarians as are many different nationalities on their own country articles. Previous nomination keep arguments justifies it for me. ww2censor (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a list doesn't mean you're notable. The list is the only place the subject belongs -- that's what WP:NOPAGE means. EEng (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. David in DC (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is clear. The reliable and verifiable sources to back it up are here. I'm not sure why I should give a crap about what the nominator does not find interesting, even with the words "at all" italicized; under the "nothing at all of any interest in the article" standard, we'd delete almost all of our five million articles. Nor can I see what changed from the rather clear consensus reached at the previous AfD for this article, a mere four weeks ago. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the earlier AfD. That there's nothing at all of interest (to the proverbial general reader) is, of course, offered as my opinion, but saying you don't give a crap is hardly a reasoned dissent from that opinion. To help you, here's the entirety of the article after removing repetition and the minutiae of "validation":

Kathleen Rollins Snavely (16 February 1902 – 6 July 2015) was the world's oldest ever Irish-born person, born in Garraun, near Feakle, County Clare as one of Patrick and Ellen Hayes' four children. She emigrated to the United States in 1921. She died in a nursing home in Syracuse on 6 July 2015, aged 113 years and 140 days. She had no children.

Can you tell us what, of this goldmine, is of any interest whatsoever? EEng (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, can you point me to your "any interest whatsoever" policy? Please remember that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to an appropriate list. More than half of the text of the article is irrelevant to the subject. It's the customary, obsessive listing of who preceded the subject in the mythical contest to die slower than others, and who the subject dislodged as the new "champion" in one subcategory or another of the human longevity Olympics. The rest is wholly mundane details about who she was born to and when, who her siblings were and where/when she died. WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOPAGE. This one is the archetype for all of these stubalicious hobbyist/fancruft "articles" - chock full of statistics in a fictional competition and devoid of any facts that belong in an enctclopedia. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor a web-hosting service for ~~the Gerontology Research Group~~ human longevity hobbyists. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's an enctclopedia? Sounds like vaguely gastrointestinal. EEng (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typos get ridiculed. Brilliant neologism in the very same sentence: crickets. I don't get no respect. David in DC (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion just about a month ago. General consensus then was to keep the article. I can't really see what could have changed since then. 930310 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Since then there's been a distinct rise in the quality of participation in AfDs on longevity subjects, with regard to the understanding of applicable policy and guidelines, and a drop in SPA infestation levels. EEng (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like some POV-Pushers have been more actively caballing and canvassing to scare off neutral, third-party input. This particular comment by you, EEng, reflects a long-standing pattern of edit-warring and battle-grounding on this subject. 930310 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does my memory deceive me, or didn't you get laughed off ANI just a few days ago for making that very same claim? [1]. Anyway, please focus on the content issues and omit the accusations of bad faith, which don't help your cause. EEng (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oldest person born in Ireland but living in the USA at some point in time. She did not manage to procreate so maybe no kids helped reduce her stress? I did not even find out tips to live longer in this one, so nothing worth having an article about. Legacypac (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Agree entirely with Alansohn. Passes WP:GNG. Sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough justification for nominating an article for deletion, as it has been on a number of other occasions. It's only been a few weeks since the last AfD for goodness sake, what's new? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep, but I would not object to a redirect. Subject satisfies the literal requirements of the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. That said, there is absolutely no reason why most of these persons cannot be noted as a one- or two-sentence entry in a "List of oldest persons in X" article, or "List of Xish supercentenarians" article, even if they are marginally notable. That would probably be best addressed in the form of a Wikipedia-wide RfC for the sake of efficiency and consistency. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see in the nomination, merging to a list was my original suggestion. EEng (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. Snappy (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians per WP:NOPAGE. Notability != inclusion; if an article is likely to remain a stub and merging would not affect readers' ability to navigate to information about the topic, we merge regardless of how many articles there are; five million articles isn't really that great. Esquivalience ^t 03:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians per WP:NOPAGE. The subject clearly meets GNG, but is equally clearly never going to have more than 5 lines about her. There is nothing here that cannot be covered as part of a larger list/article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Vanamonde sums up my thoughts very nicely. Blackmane (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Backed out previous close, and relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 8 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. All of the information belongs in a table or a list. The absence of commentary on the subject means that the subject should not have a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely (October 2015) and other users. I think "the longest-lived person from the island of Ireland" is important record.--Inception2010 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The oldest ever person from a country is notable. I don't buy the NOPAGE stuff that's being thrown around in these recent AfDs (and has rarely been used before); seems like a deletionists' charter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unwillingness or infrequency of following policy are not impressive either. There is nothing to learn in an article that is not on the list. See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Legacypac (talk)

But hang on - you want to delete the lists as well! [2] [3] [4] And longevity is not "one event". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The oldest ever person from a country is notable indeed. sources are good.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians, per WP:BLP1E. While there are lots of sources, they are all about her becoming the oldest Irish person so she is only notable for that one event. Vanamonde93 sums this article up perfectly. Take out the longevity trivia about who she surpassed and you're left with nothing more than what's on the table at the Irish article. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's not notable for BECOMING the oldest Irish person, she's notable for BEING the oldest Irish person. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here, and needs to stop being used in longevity-related AfDs. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is not the oldest Irish person. She is dead. That is the only reason BLP1E doesn't apply. BIO1E does apply. However, that is just a presumptive indicator. The real problem is that there are no secondary sources, there is nothing to say about the subject except in primary sourced cross-reference to others, all of which belong in the one table/list. If a biography were warranted, then you would be able to added sources material that discuss the subject in some depth. Unfortunately, no known sources give us any more that basic data, primary source material on which an article can not be built. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being at one time the oldest Irish person is notable. And notability is not temporary and does not go away simply because she has died since. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's where Wikipedia-notability differs from real world notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the simple basis that living a long time is insufficient grounds for WP:N. It is merely tabloid news. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 23 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.