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 no consensus. There is a clear dispute over the adequacy of the sourcing for this article, but the "keep" side has not achieved a consensus that it is sufficient, nor the "delete" side that it is not. That doesn't seem likely to be solved with relisting, though perhaps a future discussion can shed more light if additional sourcing is (or is not) forthcoming. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adelina Domingues (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)

There is no notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest X is notable”. The sourcing for this article is a mere two obituaries and a GRG list entry, and fails WP:GNG because she lacks WP:SIGCOV proving notability. The only other sources I could find on her WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE generic obituary type sources or brief mentions. Even if these sources meant she was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E should almost certainly apply as there is nothing to say about her other than the basic trivial longevity stuff (born, married, had kids, held a title, died). Her presence on six separate lists is enough, as this article is never going to expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB. The article was deleted once before for lacking WP:SIGCOV proving notability and recreated on the false premise that the oldest in the world is automatically notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though there is no guidance for notability on longevity, there are guidelines for notability in general (WP:N) and she fulfills them well, starting with the Guinness Record. To mentions a few sources that covered her (in life and death), LAT, a Time's book, a longevity book, CBS, CNN, Telegraph. There are other sources (here) and some in Portuguese (here). Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 21:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holding a Guinness Record is only inherently notable to Guinness, not in the outside world. The LA Times article was a local obituary (look at the url - they filed it under local), the Times book includes a mere quote from her as far as I can tell, and the longevity book just includes her in a list of old people. Such a list does not ever in any way prove her notability or anyone else's. The CBS and Telegraph articles were WP:ROUTINE coverage of such deaths (oldest in U.S.), and she has a passing fluff mention in the CNN article about her secret to longevity. None of this WP:ROUTINE coverage or other passing mentions that exist is close to satisfying WP:SIGCOV requirements for notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and for full disclosure I've been actively involved in discussions about paring back the number of supercentenarian articles. Per the nominator's comments the sources don't have any in-depth coverage of the subject herself, which is reflected in the article that basically says "she lived, she lived a long time, she kicked off". Delaying the inevitable isn't inherently notable, as the dearth of coverage shows. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we are to follow the notability guidelines, we would not be considering this article for deletion. I found a few more useful sources that validate Domingues' public and international distinction: India Times, the Spanish Magnet. And then, for the scholarly publications: her name appeared variously in the well-reputed, Rejuvenation Research, see here for the last time; and the Africa Today here (Vol. 49, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 135-136). It does not matter if the reference came in the local section of the LAT, it was published there and in many more trustworthy and prominent venues, nevertheless. It does not matter, either, that most references are short mentions. She was basically famous for one thing: outliving most other humans, and that is what the notes are all about. But what makes her notable for Wikipedia is the fact that her feat was covered across continents: the Americas, Europe, and Asia (see the sources already cited for their geolocations). We should not be bending the notoriously flexible guidelines so much as to break them here just because we are "paring back the number of supercentenarian articles." Each article deserves individual examination.Rosario (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cited do not constitute WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The India article is a passing fluff mention only, as is the Spanish article. The Rejuvenation article is about many different people, not just her and was a WP:ROUTINE publication. We don't have access to the Africa article, only Virginia Tech students do, so it adds no weight to this discussion. Are you even actually reviewing any of these sources before talking up their merits? Local coverage of a subject also carries less weight then national and international coverage of a subject. This AfD is also not just about notability, but how the article fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: To ask at this point if I am reading the sources is to break the spirit of the WP:GF, and feels like WP:BULLY. I could ask a similar question to you about what I wrote above. And to say that these sources "do not constitute WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG" is to ignore that they are indeed part of the reliable sources we use in Wikipedia. Actually, the problem is not the sources, but the difference in reading them. You read them as insufficient. Me, on the other hand, read them as more than enough. As I explained before, most of these mentions are short because she was notable not for anything else than living longer than others (with the possible exception of her odd advice about makeup). You cannot expect more content in these sources. It would be unfair. Above, I gave the complete citation for the journal's article in case the link was not accessible to others. But for the sake of convenience, here I quote the relevant portion:

The Cape Verdean experience underscores how difficult it is to ascribe identity to apparently obvious characteristics like race and color. When Adelina Domingues died, on 21 August 2002, at the age of 114 in San Diego, she had been recognized as the oldest living American. The Guinness Book of Records cites a baptismal record that fixes her birth date at 18 February 1888 in Cape Verde, although she always insisted it was 1887. The administrator of the nursing home where she had lived since 1995 called her "our feisty little Portuguese sweetheart."

I read this reference to ms Domingues as evidence of her notability. How many supercentenarians have been mentioned in a scholarly review not related to longevity studies mainly because of the broad coverage of her death? That's in top of the LAT, ABC, and many other media outlets that mentioned her. In my eyes, that's certainly NOT WP:ROUTINE.

The WP:BIO1E, which is a guideline that admits to the difficulty of single-events articles (i.e., deleting them is not so easily settled), states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." But I see two events, (1) living above 114 and then (2) getting such a wide recognition. And even if you think that there is only one, the significance and her role in it justifies the article. It is not difficult to understand that a Guinness record on its own would not have achieved enough notability for a Wikipedia article, but when it has been mentioned as wide and far as Domingues', that's a different story. Rosario (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though a bunch of places seem to have covered her, even by your own telling none of these articles included anything meaningful beyond a few statistics and had absolutely no actual, in-depth coverage; she lived, she died, that's about it. The result is what we have today; an article that says nothing substantive about the subject, since none of the sources actually do, and instead consists of a few paragraphs of longevity fanfluff masquerading as an actual article. Nothing that statistics on a list can't express. A bunch of places simply noting in a one-off paragraph that she died is not anything beyond routine, and Rejuvenation Research is useless for determining notability; it's a vanity journal rife with fringe content that utterly fails as an reliable source for anything (see the discussion here for further background). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Blade of the Northern Lights. The above quote seems highly unremarkable to me (it's just a passing mention) and your paragraphs of text and whining that I'm bullying you do nothing to sway me away from the fact based explanations that have been given that this article should be deleted. Also, it's not my fault the link you provided leads to a source only students at a particular school can access. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: concur with the nom that There is no notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest X is notable”. It's basically the luck of the draw. Coverage is of routine variety and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This individual was clearly non-notable until she became the world's oldest person, at which point she became notable when her obituary later was reported in multiple press outlets as demonstrated by Caballero. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that she was clearly not notable, but it was over 10 years after her death when groups like the GRG started to claim she had once been the WOP. She never had that claimed distinction in life and there is no policy or guideline that the oldest anything is notable, which was the sole reason this article was recreated after being deleted before. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your calling her a WOP. She's not even Italian. EEng 23:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I had no idea that WOP as a regular word is an insult. Thank you for adding some humor and education to this AfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newshunter12, you are obviously a person of refinement and erudition. Have you visited The Museums? EEng 17:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E I have now, and I must say it is quite the witty and insightful place you have there. The share and the compliments are much appreciated. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 00:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. A GRG table and two routine obituaries does not make someone notable. Entry in a list of is fine. Even if notable, WP:NOPAGE should apply anyway as the article is never going to expand beyond "born, got married, worked, had kids, got old, died". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderLinx (talk • contribs)
• Delete/redirect. NOPAGE. EEng 23:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Caballero. Into the Rift (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So nice of you to appear out of nowhere just to try to throw wrenches into longevity AfDs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First choice: keep. The sources provided by Caballero1967 (talk · contribs) demonstrate that Adelina Domingues passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

  The local obituary in the major newspaper the Los Angeles Times provides plenty of biographical coverage about her:

  1. She was born in 1888 on the Cape Verde Islands off West Africa.
  2. "Her father was an Italian harbor pilot, her mother of Portuguese ancestry."
  3. "She did missionary work for the Church of the Nazarene in Africa and the Cape Verde Islands."
  4. In 1907 she immigrated to the United States on a schooner named David Story.
  5. She "was a vigorous street-corner preacher during her years in Boston and New Bedford, Mass."
  6. At age 19, she married Jose, a captain of merchant ships, who died in 1950 of cancer.
  7. She was a skilled seamstress.
  8. She "lectured a public gathering that too many Americans take freedom for granted" at age 100.
  9. Before 107, she lived alone. At 107, she moved into a retirement facility.
  10. She was politically conservative.
  11. She was a pen pal of President Ronald Reagan during his presidency.
  12. She was a naturalized American citizen.
  This obituary from the Associated Press (article is via CBS News) provides more biographical coverage of her:
  1. She was born in the Cape Verde Islands on Feb. 19, 1888.
  2. Her father was a Italian sea captain and her mother was a Cape Verdean.
  3. She married whaling captain Jose Domingues.
  4. She and Jose Domingues moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts in 1907.
  5. She and Jose Domingues had four children (three sons and one daughter).
  6. One son died at age 2. One son and one daughter died when they were teenagers.
  7. After Jose Domingues died in 1950, she moved to Southern California to be near her son Frank who died in Palm Desert in 1998.
  8. At age 100, the "Today" show showed her photo and Willard Scott said her name.
  9. She voted while she was in her 100s.
  10. She wrote "admiring letters" to President Ronald Reagan.
  11. She lived at the Brighton Place nursing home in the Spring Valley area of San Diego County from 1995 until her death on August 21, 2002.
  12. Her remains were planned to be buried at a family plot in Massachusetts.
  Second choice: merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people in lieu of deletion per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems.

  My first choice is to retain the article as a standalone article because the sources give an overview of her life and provide significant biographical material about her.

  Cunard (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times is a major paper, however, its coverage of Domingues was just local in nature (look at the news articles url - it was filed under local) and the CBS obituary was WP:ROUTINE coverage of the death of the oldest living American, which happens again and again since old people die. None of this means she meets WP:GNG because she lacks WP:SIGCOV of her proving notability. Lots of people with momentarily interesting quirks get vanity obituaries published because they are an interesting curiosity - it doesn't make them notable individuals nor does some info existing about them make them notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of supercentenarians by continent per WP:ATD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure, probably delete. She was notable for her age for only a short time in 2002, unlike some other supercentenarians who appeared in documentaries and articles for some years before their deaths. However, she does appear in a Dictionary of African Christian Biography, for her work ministering in Brava in the 1950s - her entry in that dictionary was included several years before she died. But I don't know what the notability criteria for missionaries are. I suspect that she was considered important in her local church only, apart from a brief visit back to Cape Verde (where she may have been remembered for some time, as apparently all the taverns and dance halls closed due to her influence). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In earlier years, we had an excessive number of articles on supercentenarians, some poorly documented, and most only the oldest person within a particular country. We did well to delete most of these, but to removethe articles on those who were the world's oldest is going much too far in the opposite direction. There are sufficient sources, and it's a reasonable thing for an `e to cover. Almanacs always did, and according to WP:NOT , WP possess some of the characteristics of an almanac. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Adelina was at one point the World's Oldest Person (not the oldest in a specific country), and as there is coverage of her (albeit limited), I think she meets the criteria for inclusion. RebeccaGreen above says "She was notable for her age for only a short time in 2002" - I feel that being notable for a short time (other than ONEEVENT type - which this is not, I think, by common convention) is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:02, 30 October 2018 (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.