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 supercentenarians by continent#Oldest Oceanian people ever. Sandstein 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Schmierer (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)

No independent notability besides her exceptional longevity. The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the oldest Oceanian people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was not just her age (112 years) that was notable. For the last two years of her life, she was the last Australian living who had been born before Australia became a nation, and she, and her experience of her life, became notable because of that. The List of supercentenarians from Oceania does not, and cannot, record that. She meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like administrative changes in her lifetime and all her various moves. Furthermore, she does not inherit per WP:NOTINHERITED the notability of Australia's shift from colony to country just because she was a citizen of both entities. And as the article itself says, "Her life was very ordinary until she reached the age of 110." Enough said. She belongs on a list, nothing more. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, it seems that there is a group of editors determined to remove all articles about supercentenarians. I expect you will succeed. I don't find terms like 'blatantly', 'packed with' and 'fancruft' rational - they seem highly emotive. (I had to look 'fancruft' up - I gather it's a term that originated on Wikipedia.) And, like all Wikipedia guidelines, WP:BIO1E seems to be applied somewhat subjectively. I would not consider that being notable for a period of two years for one's extreme age, for living across 3 centuries, and for being the last person born before nationhood, counts as 'one event'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on this one. Subject is also a published author. And there are more general references and mentions. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That book is a mere small autobiography, not a notable work of non-fiction. It does nothing to prove notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very very rare I suggest for anyone to publish anything at that age though! Aoziwe (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the list of Oceania supercentenarians. Writing an autobiography and maintaining brain waves for a long time isn't sufficient for a standalone article, but per the new sources it seems there's enough interest from secondary sources for a minibio; that would seem to make the most sens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found the page, read "Her life was very ordinary" and knew how to vote. Living across three centuries is just the timing of parents deciding to have you before the turn of the ccentury and then not dying for 100 years. Lots of people were born before Australia became independant, and they all died eventually. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being the oldest something does not make you autonotable. WP:BIO1E. » Shadowowl | talk 10:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "I found the page, read "Her life was very ordinary" and knew how to vote." Most people's lives are ordinary before they become notable, and some people's lives are ordinary after they have been notable. Living to an advanced age is not a criterion that excludes someone from being notable. Oh, and then "not dying for a hundred years"? Easy, right? I have gathered from the so-called Wikipedia project Longevity that this round of deletions is meant to be establishing guidelines for notability among supercentenarians. I have seen no evidence of that whatsoever in the votes of members of that project. Some supercentenarians get far more coverage, over a longer period of time, than others. But that is clearly of no interest to all the editors who are determined to delete them just because they were notable in their extreme old age. Thankfully, Wikipedia is not the only source, or even the best source, of information in the world. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect/merge "married to dairy farmer" is the only fact about her given. EEng 05:47, 4 December 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.