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 delete. I'm discounting the opinion that treats very old people as inherently notable because this is contrary to our guidelines and practice. Sandstein 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Mason

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Declined PROD. My original rationale is the basis for this AfD; "Yet another thoroughly non-notable oldster. 4 obituaries and one local news article is nowhere close to surpassing routine coverage, and simply breathing for longer than anyone else in an arbitrarily defined geographical area is not inherently notable." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family, jobs held and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of British supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Article only includes minimal information about her quiet life. Nothing notable beside her old age; coverage in longevity tables is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 02:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of non-routine significant and sustained coverage of the subject, the details of her life may be quiet but so what; there are many people interested in the lives of the super elderly. Easily passes WP:GNG and the delete votes amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are not policy based. Its more than WP:BLP1E as there is sustained coverage of her later years, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so what; there are many people interested in the lives of the super elderly… In other words, you like it? Guess what, I like it too!

That's not an argument against deletion. — JFG ^talk 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Atlantic306 there is enough coverage to meet notability of her age , and as there is a huge amount of 100+ on here which also have non eventful lives (Merle Barwis an example) a precedent has already been set.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point; the GRG and its fans used Wikipedia for years as a dumping ground for sub-stubs such as this and the one you linked, and the early discussions on them had so many (and many of them with an obvious COI) SPAs that they're effectively useless for determining consensus on this matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However you have missed the point - we have on Wikipedia a wikiproject devoted to this so there are users who believe that this should be in Wikipedia - as the dictionary says encyclopedia says "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." Centurions is the subject, and the centurions that are on here is the aspects.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for years they used Wikipedia as a dumping ground for their pet project and ran roughshod over our policies on notability. It's not whether a few obsessive fanboys wanting to promote their organization think something is notable, it's whether reliable, secondary sources do; in this case, the near-total absence of them shows this particular oldster is not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included is the wording of WP:BIO which means the guidelines are not set in stone. Wikipedia is a global project that will see different people have different ideas on what should and should not be on here. The WP:GNG is not a policy - its General Notability Guidance and as such is managed on a policy of wikipedias members making decisions. If Administrators thought the other Centurions did not meet the requirements they would have been removed. It will be down to the administrator to make a judgement - this is not a vote just a talking shop to put our opinion across.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side track on the term "oldster", not helpful to determining article fate
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like yet another oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing debasing terminology on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic, if not bigoted. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] It's AfD, not mainspace. And trying to find a bit of levity in this all would do everyone some good, it's how I manage to keep at it after navigating several years of this toxic environment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] "Levity" is irrelevant when it comes to sexism, ageism, or racism - Wikiettique still applies. Bigotry is not a "joke". It does not matter if it is situated in AfD or not. AfD is a public space. What is particularly telling regarding these recent incidents of ageism is how the terminology shifted from the more respectful "exceptional longevity" to the derogatory term "oldster". Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Honestly, I almost want to vomit on hearing this kind of blather. E Eng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anecdotally, I can't ever remember someone using "oldster" as an insult and have a hard time visualizing it as such. As to bigotry, quoth Inigo Montoya; "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] User:The Blade of the Northern Lights - See Wikipedia's definition of Pejorative suffix - specifically the entry in the English section - "oldster". The suffix -ster attaches a negative connotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative_suffix Netherzone (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] You'd think a university professor would know better than to rely on Wikipedia as a source. Even Wikipedia doesn't rely on Wikipedia as a source. Try a good dictionary. E Eng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Respectfully, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your criticism of that term and claims of prejudice, and it would have been better to talk to the applicable editor on their personal talk page, if you felt there was a problem with their word use, instead of spamming AfD's with the same complaint. This topic area has also had at least 10 years of controversy and I don't think once has it ever been over that word. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Greetings User:Newshunter12 Sorry you may have misundertood my intentions. They are to preserve civil engagement between generations, and resolve systemic bias, and I certainly not intend to spam as you curiously suggest. I thought spam had a commercial motives. None here. NO WORRIES dear, no grudges. Your fellow editor who are working together with on the persons of advanced age are serving a noble cause. All good. Thank you for the work you do in the place I misunderstood was an encyclopedia. Best to you, Netherzone (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] I responded to this particularly brazen show of dopiness at [1]. By the way, Netherzone, you need to know that ascribing bigotry and so on to other editors without knowing what fuck you're talking about is a personal attack. E Eng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] No response. Huh. E Eng 03:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side track on the term "oldster", not helpful to determining article fate

The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.

Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like yet another oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing debasing terminology on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic, if not bigoted. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's AfD, not mainspace. And trying to find a bit of levity in this all would do everyone some good, it's how I manage to keep at it after navigating several years of this toxic environment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Levity" is irrelevant when it comes to sexism, ageism, or racism - Wikiettique still applies. Bigotry is not a "joke". It does not matter if it is situated in AfD or not. AfD is a public space. What is particularly telling regarding these recent incidents of ageism is how the terminology shifted from the more respectful "exceptional longevity" to the derogatory term "oldster". Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I almost want to vomit on hearing this kind of blather. E Eng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, I can't ever remember someone using "oldster" as an insult and have a hard time visualizing it as such. As to bigotry, quoth Inigo Montoya; "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Blade of the Northern Lights - See Wikipedia's definition of Pejorative suffix - specifically the entry in the English section - "oldster". The suffix -ster attaches a negative connotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative_suffix Netherzone (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think a university professor would know better than to rely on Wikipedia as a source. Even Wikipedia doesn't rely on Wikipedia as a source. Try a good dictionary. E Eng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your criticism of that term and claims of prejudice, and it would have been better to talk to the applicable editor on their personal talk page, if you felt there was a problem with their word use, instead of spamming AfD's with the same complaint. This topic area has also had at least 10 years of controversy and I don't think once has it ever been over that word. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings User:Newshunter12 Sorry you may have misundertood my intentions. They are to preserve civil engagement between generations, and resolve systemic bias, and I certainly not intend to spam as you curiously suggest. I thought spam had a commercial motives. None here. NO WORRIES dear, no grudges. Your fellow editor who are working together with on the persons of advanced age are serving a noble cause. All good. Thank you for the work you do in the place I misunderstood was an encyclopedia. Best to you, Netherzone (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this particularly brazen show of dopiness at [1]. By the way, Netherzone, you need to know that ascribing bigotry and so on to other editors without knowing what fuck you're talking about is a personal attack. E Eng 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Huh. E Eng 03:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I think just that she lived 111 years should be given significant consideration.Alex-h (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that says the oldest anything is notable or entitled to an article. Your keep argument is entirely without merit, and there have been countless thousands of supercentenarians at that. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newshunter12 put it best: this is a WP:BIO1E, the subject will have nothing else written about it as her sandwich-making skills appear not to have been notable enough to make any news that I can find. I highly doubt any reader will type her name into the search box, she can be preserved in the longevity tables that currently exist. Ifnord (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trillfendi (talk) 04:12, 8 November 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.