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The result was withdrawn. Canadian Paul 18:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosa Rein[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

This article highlights the craziness happening in the World's Oldest Persons area. Between the visible and hidden (click edit on article to see hidden) claims, Rosa Rein is supposed to be the on the lists for both super old people born in Poland and born in Germany, the oldest Jew at some point, super old people from Switzerland, super old people in the EU (except Switzerland is not in the EU), nth oldest person here there and somewhere and to hold assorted national longevity records. How to sort this all out? Delete the article per WP:NOPAGE (there is barely any bio info to put anywhere), ignore the confusing "record" claims, and reduce the slice and dice lists based on arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with age. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep based on recent expasion. EEng (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Delete/Merge/Redirect to European list, with the tiny amount of info there is about here. EEng (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The article makes an abundantly clear claim of notability for Rein and provides the reliable and verifiable sources needed to back the claim and create an appropriate article. (Personal attack removed) The issues that are raised by Legacypac are properly addressed by editing the article, not by deleting it. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What sources might that be? Two sources are dead links, one is a few sentences of her 109th birthday (Which would be WP:ROUTINE coverage) and the last one is a GRG table which does nothing to establish notability. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article has been expanded, retracting comment. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete and/or Redirect to one of the five or so lists she's on. No justifying a standalone article. Taking out the unsourced trivia about her longevity leaves you with a name, age and country. Put her on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Reply[reply]

- After changes, the current article contains significantly more information then name, age and country. All can be backed up by the sources in the article. Since there are sufficient sources she is relevant, and the people who are interested in her, are interested in her for her age. As such, her biography is interesting information for these readers. Such information cannot be put in a list. Since the article contains relevant info that cannot be put in a list, it is best to maintain a seperate article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Changing vote to Keep as per your changes. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There does seem to be craziness going on. There seems to be an attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles about "oldest people". This one is notable, there are several reliable sources that could be drawn on to expand the article. Regardless of whether you WP:DONTLIKE it or not, oldest people are a topic of interest to Wikipedia readers, and this goes beyond a mere entry on a list. And there also seems to be a campaign to rid the encyclopedia of lists of oldest people. The whole exercise is very WP:POINTy, and is making wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and reeks of WP:OWNership. Jacona (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and Expand There are several available sources regarding Mrs. Rein's longevity:

Rosa, la doyenne suisse (26 March 2005)

Älteste Schweizerin ist 109 Jahre alt (24 March 2006)

Älteste Schweizerin feierte 110. Geburtstag (24 March 2007)

Rosa Rein wird 111 (22 March 2008)

Älteste Schweizerin wird 111 Jahre alt (24 March 2008)

Rosa Rein feiert in Lugano-Paradiso ihren 112. Geburtstag (2 April 2009)

Älteste Schweizerin Rosa Rein kurz vor 113. Geburtstag gestorben (14 February 2010)

Given this amount of information there should be enough to expand this article rather than to delete it. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Reply[reply]

All but two of these are a single sentence, and the others appear to say little more than what's in the article now. Can you point out what you think would be added to the article? EEng (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have expanded the article from this to this. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I look forward to taking a look when I'm off this stupid phone. EEng (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - WP:BIO, WP:GNG - She has received significant coverage in multiple reliable independant sources. I added a mention in a book to the article,a and two articles specifically about her from notable news agencies. -- Taketa (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Agree with other users. I don't understand why user:Legacypac and user:EEng insistently to be erased so much longevity article.--Inception2010 (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Reply[reply]
Keep - Per WP:BIO , WP:GNG. Legacypac should consider to only apply afd tags to articles that are truly non notable and etc.. not only IDONTLIKEIT. It is a waste of time.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The above keep votes are spot on. Well-sourced, notable, no reason to delete. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdraw this improved version with actual bio info, better sources and less confusing content, is not something I would AfD. good job. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[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.