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.
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 and the documentation she had proving her age claim. 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 four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Once the trivia about longevity stats is removed, there remains nothing of substance about this person's life. Her entry in the various "oldest people" tables is enough to convey the only thing that she is notable for, i.e. her exceptional longevity. — JFGtalk23:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing use of a debasing term on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic and unprofessional, if not bigoted. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, put a sock in it; it's just an informal term. "Unencyclopedic"? A meaningless term, and besides this discussion isn't part of the encyclopedia. "Unprofessional"? We're not professionals. "Bigoted"? Get a grip. EEng03:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:EEng What is the "it" that you refer to, please, where I should put the item of footware? I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but I thought this was an encyclopedia and that the AfD was public. Sorry. Forgive me if I misunderstood. Yes it is true that "oldster" seems like a bigoted statement from my cultural standpoint, and I now understand that it is not derogatory from your standpoint. What is the item that you are suggesting for me to grip? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Netherzone:
The "it" is wherever you need to put the footwear (not "footware", which would be something like items of commerce made from feet, I guess) to restrain yourself from spouting further nonsense.
You do misunderstand. Article space constitutes the encyclopedia we're working on (if we weren't wasting our time on this absurd debate over imagined disrespect, of course); this is project space.
This has nothing to do with "cultural standpoints" (apparently a phrase meaning "I freely assign significance to things according to personal whim") but rather with you not doing your homework. Some terms have ambiguous meanings or shades of connotation, but this isn't one of them. Since you're a "University professor and administrator" I would think you'd know how to look things up on your own, but since I'm in a generous mood here're the OED definitions for oldster:
1. Nautical. A midshipman who has served for over four years. Cf. youngster
2. A person who is no longer a youth or novice; an elderly or experienced person.
Now you tell me: in a discussion of persons 110 years of age or older, what's "bigoted" about "no longer a youth... elderly or experienced"?
The item you should grip is reality; that should help you release your ridiculous pretended sensitivity over made-up offenses.
Anything else I can clarify for you, Mr. or Ms. "cultural worker" (and I'm trying not to laugh at that as a label self-applied)? Next time, as my junior high school shop teacher used to say, make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth (or pen, or keyboard) in gear, and especially before spamming the same knee-jerk scolding into three (THREE!) different AfDs after apparently taking zero (ZERO!) time to find out what you're talking about. EEng15:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to an appropriate list. Article even more vacuous than usual, especially after you discount the history of Puerto Rican education and the fascinating (and dubious) information that two people were "interviewed together" for the census a hundred years ago. EEng03:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE. Majority of this article is longevity trivia that someone was thought to be oldest until her her age was verified (there's an entire paragraph that screams original research about how her age was verified). Other than that, she was born, got married, adopted her nephew, got old and then died. Removing the longevity trivia and the padded fluff (interviewed for the 1920 census and early Puerto Rican edumacation) and there's nothing that can't easily be handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:51, 5 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.