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. Sigh. Yet another old people AfD. Like most of these, we've got about half the people arguing, "The oldest X is notable" and the other half arguing, "No it's not". A smattering of WP:SPA activity, pretty much evenly distributed. Whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Stevenson (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)

This lady was at the end of her life the oldest GRG verified person. However, many of the people with this distinction do not have articles. There are some sources but none have any details on her life, so we end up with a Bio that restates the info readily seen on the table here Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955 and on the UK article. This does a disservice to the reader who expects to learn something following the link. Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be deleted and the sources added to support her name in the appropriate list. (The list above, year of death, perhaps the UK country list). Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Oldest person in the world and oldest Briton ever for a while. That's clearly notable. And no, I don't accept the NOPAGE rubbish that's trotted out on every single one of these supercentenarian AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument. Many people with this distinction DO have articles, so you're putting a biased spin on the situation. The article is well-sourced and I imagine it can be expanded. I agree, with Necrothesp, these never-ending AfDs are not constructive and need to stop. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I agree it's well sourced and she is notable, but imagining a PERMASTUB can be expanded and being able to actually expand the WP:PERMASTUB are two very different things. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even try before nominating for deletion? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Yes. Did you try before telling us you imagine it can be expanded? Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per above WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument. But mostly because being the oldest briton is within WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an WP:ASSERTN argument. " Thus, whether an article asserts significance for its topic is not germane when notability is at issue at an AfD discussion; what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it..." Can you provide anything like that? Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)*[reply]

• Delete If one follows our policy, this is an easy call. There is nothing in this article that cannot be covered in a list, per WP:NOPAGE. It's simply not biographical to detail a bunch of facts about other people and where they stood in relation to the article's subject in some mythical competition to live long. Announcing that a person who lives an extraordinarily long time is, by virtue of that fact alone, notable does not comport with our policies on notability. Perhaps, under our everyday understanding of the word "notable", some longevity enthusiasts might consider this person notable. But that's not how "notable" is defined on Wikipedia. It's not about whether a person is "worthy" of an article here, or whether they "deserve" one. It's about whether there is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. This article has references to a few reliable sources, but there's nothing significant here. It's like Gertrude Stein's observation about the Oakland, California of her time. Once you get there, there's no "there" there.
  It is not disruptive to try to improve our encyclopedia by pruning back a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that has, for far too long, proliferated articles and lists that defy our policies. As tired as the longevity hobbyists are of AfD's based on policy, please trust that the wikipedians working on correcting these out-of-policy accretions are equally tired of being accused of disrupting our joint endeavor. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some of them are only short articles, she's covered in at least 9 sources. That looks like significant coverage to me. And can you please explain how better understanding of this subject can be achieved by deleting this article? She was the world's oldest person and the oldest British person ever at one time - that information could only be accessed by looking at two separate lists on different articles, whereas it can all be seen at once by having a standalone article. You're not "pruning back a WP:WALLEDGARDEN" any longer; that has already been done. A number of uninvolved editors have shown support for keeping many longevity articles which the usual "longevity deletionists" want to get rid of. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

all these sources say nothing that is not found on our list of super old people. Read WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She received significant, albeit not very extensive, coverage for several years and was at one time recognized as having been the oldest Briton of all time. The fact that she is also currently recognized as having been the World's Oldest Living Person at one time further suggests that this person was in fact notable. The previous AfD was closed as "Keep" with the consensus that since she was the World's Oldest Person, she was also notable enough. It's now five years later and nothing regarding her status as titleholder has changed, so there is no need for a new AfD. 930310 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change after five years. David in DC (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article amounts to "this was the oldest person living in the 1970s born in a place that kept good birth records in the 1860s". Not at all a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As usual after one filters out the minutiae of validation, there's nothing left but born, lived, died, which is best handled on a list. EEng (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with other users. related very similar articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Eliza Williams have closed as keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

don't intentionally mislead other editors. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac's right. The close was on Williams was no consensus. Inception2010, you really are making what appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation. EEng (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per notable for oldest brit. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 02:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address the nopage argument? Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've honestly tried to stay away from this type of article since do see both sides clearly. The main reason for my comment here is because from my search it appear notable enough. I think for a stub it's okay to remain that way, (but I obviously have no strong feelings about this!) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nopage argument should be made on the article talk page, not at AfD. clpo13_(talk) 09:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is already presented on the appropriate list, the question is do we delete or redirect this page? "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page),userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Further, only superold people fans watch these pages so getting that subset of editors to delete based on a very low traffic page suggestion is highly unlikely. This topic was the subject of an ArbComm case, leading to discretionary sanctions, so requires special handling by all. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The claim of notability is extremely clear and is backed up by multiple reliable and verifiable sources to create an article of appropriate length and scope. Alansohn (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Usual discussion, I see about one a week, would be good if policy guidelines captured this so I didn't have to bother reading these afds, can't recall ever seeing one of these deleted so it all seems a bit circular to me. Refs are fine and the page will never get any deeper, so be it. Szzuk (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all these, you don't recall a single one being deleted? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I only use deletion sort UK. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When looking for significant coverage of her, there isn't much. As cited, citations 2-7 aren't for her for her but for her in terms of her ranking. There's two GRG citations, one to the Rejuvenation Research, and one to a demographic study, all of which are going to be just listings of her which seems to be what those five sources are for and not much more. From there, there's the Reading Eagle bit which is a trivial mention about her not taking medicine (which seems to be the implication of the Guardian piece although it's for the next oldest Briton). The Pittsburgh Press is another single-column blurb with little details, as is the Windsor Star (mostly about the number of claims rather than her) and the Leader-Post (that she turned 112). A sprinkle of random mentions across a number of pages isn't sufficient for an article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies don't set a high bar. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect. WP:NOPAGE. While there are a good number of sources, this article tells us nothing (literally) that isn't already present in the table linked in the opening. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[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.