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 keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 02:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Cock[edit]

Christina Cock (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 person's notability is very limited. Excluding the single-line mention at the GRG, there is a single article with substantial coverage of her (well her obituary). She may be the oldest person in Australian history which I think supports a redirect to List_of_Australian_supercentenarians#Australian_supercentenarians but not much else. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, the article was originally about Christina Cock, an early (17th century) settler of New Sweden. A case could be made for an article about her, but not, I think for the article as it currently stands. I would probably move this information to the bottom of one of our many lists of dead old people rather than devote an article to her. - Nunh-huh 23:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The supercentarian version was first created in December 2004 but deleted for being a copyright violation (to the same The Age article everyone keeps repeating again and again. Then the settler and the quote "hijacking" complaints (see Talk:Christina Cock as well). We may need to split the history here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History split requested. See also Talk:Christina Cock#Untitled and Talk:Christina Cock#Revision-history split requested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth, the closest parallel AFD I could find at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo from 2012 where being the oldest woman in Asia (and Australia is a part of Oceania in Wikipedia, not treated a separate continent) alone was insufficient and supported a merge to Japanese supercentanarians (which was never done and thus we're on the second nomination for that article). That's for those who prefer to review some history of these types of articles here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being the oldest person ever from a country is an enduring, recurring citation, and she has received coverage in reliable sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enduring in that someone else later could be older. It's enduring in that she was the lost person from that country at that time but is that really anything more than trivia? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Not only has she held this record for over 13 years, but even when someone does break her record, she will still remain as a "previous record holder". No, I would not say that being an all-time national record holder is a matter of trivia, especially as we're dealing with a reasonably large country (not like the Vatican city). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is the oldest person from a country of almost 24 million people (as of 2015), that is surely a notable achievement. She is also one of the 100 verified oldest people ever. As well as this, she has also been cited by various reliable soures. -- Bodgey5 (talk) 1:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

She's also number 77 on the all time list. Would all 100 be notable in your opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep, quite plainly. There are several sources I found which establish that this subject meets WP:GNG. [1][2][3] The first source, from Gerontology Research Group, has a entire three-paragraph section on her (certainly not a passing mention), while the second and third sources are about her exclusively, although the third one is a bit short. As Ollie mentioned above, being the all-time oldest person from a nation is quite a notable achievement. --Biblioworm (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that the first and third sources there are reliable sources. The second citation was already mentioned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GRG's reliability is only unclear to people ignorant of the gerontology field, which regards it as the standard for reliability. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a source about their longevity information doesn't stem to biographies that the GRG's website publishes (the GRG's reliability doesn't stem to everything they do). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Australian_supercentenarians. Full of OR and trivia, insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "Keep" claims here is justified under Wiki policy. This article (currently) fails WP:1E (no substantive content added in at least 3 years; WP:SIGCOV insufficient significant coverage in multiple independent sources; and if material that fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:OBIT were removed there would be even less content. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Australian supercentenarians. Sourcing is very thin here and there isn't enough material available to support a stand alone article. Additionally the sources provided aren't great. AniMate 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the issue is that she already has an entry there, so why not just vote delete? --Biblioworm (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging and redirecting leave the history of this article intact and can potentially be useful for anyone editing the main list article. AniMate 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, since there is really nothing to merge, shouldn't you just vote redirect? I could possibly see that practicality of that. --Biblioworm (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't realize I'd have to be incredibly specific to make a routine AfD !vote understood. I thought experienced editors understood that the outcome of a merge almost always leaves behind a redirect. Since you apparently don't understand, I'll lay it out very simply and specifically. Merge any relevant information not already there to List of Australian supercentenarians. Leave a redirect behind. AniMate 18:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been editing wikis (not Wikipedia, necessarily), since early last year and I understand quite well what a merge is. I myself have occasionally voted merge in AfDs. What I'm saying is that since the information in List of Australian supercentenarians is in table form, there really is no relevant prose content to merge. Therefore, a redirect seems to make more sense than a merge, in my opinion, since there is nothing to merge; the table already contains all the information required of it. My intent was simply to point this out; not start a debate. --Biblioworm (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mrs. Cock is the oldest person ever from Australia and has been so for several years now, that itself is enough for this article about her to be kept. 930310 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I could have read here, that Mrs. Cock is the oldest person in the history of Australia, whose age has been confirmed by scientific research. Australia is also a continent. Being the oldest person ever from a continent is definitely notable. White Eaglet (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — White Eaglet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Being the oldest ever of a country is notable. Plus this articles has been on wiki for 5 years. Are we suddenly going to raise questions to old articles? -- Petervermaelen (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that we might keep the oldest article on Wikipedia if it failed other tests (though it could well be moved). But for articles, age is not a criteria for "keep" rather for "why didn't it go sooner?" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    
• Keep This woman isn't the third, isn't the second, she is THE oldest person ever in the famous country of Australia. Her notability isn't limited, or you consider personally that a longevity recordholder isn't notable... that is not my mind. LC-Barti (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom mkes a fair point, that not a lot of information is included in this article; however, the subject matter is the oldest person who's ever lived in Australia. I think this is notable enough to warrant a keep. Besides which, it's not just a one line article, and contains some well-sourced information that would be lost in the event of a merge. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 17:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - despite difficulties with our coverage of people only notable for their age. Consider moving to Christine Cock All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

Her name wasn't Christine. Why move it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep* This person's notability is 'limited'? She is the oldest person ever in Australia, a country with over 23 million people. That is very notable, and I believe there is significant interest in people who hold these records. The page also contains a bit about her family and history. Anyone who is the oldest person ever in their respective country is notable and should be kept. Oscar248 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If this article is deleted, what to do with the new article Christina Cock (Swedish pioneer) which its hatlink points to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move it here. There's no need for the hatlink or parenthical anymore. The joys that occur when this kind of chaos occurs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• To avoid chaos, WP:IAR and leave it as-is as long as the active WP:Proposed deletion template exists (or, if it is removed without the issues being addressed, don't move it for 24 hours to give the PRODder time to send it to AFD). Once it's clear it won't be deleted soon, then move it to Christina Cock. 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Information: I have added several possible references to the article's talk page at Talk:Christina Cock#Additional sources. The first 3 are celebrations of her 112th, 113th, and 114th birthdays. The 4th is a celebration of long life in general. Mrs. Cock gets a paragraph in that one. The 5th one is an extended obituary. The last one is the minutes of a local city-council (or equivalent) meeting in 2002, in which she, along with two other recently-deceased very old Austrialians, were called "true Australian icons". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:58, 22 August 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.