Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsa Moberg (2nd nomination)

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 Swedish supercentenarians. Doesn't seem to be a reason to delete before redirecting. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Moberg

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

Limited info on the subject with nothing of note beyond what is on the List_of_Swedish_supercentenarians Most of content is how this person succeed that person by not dying. WP:NOPAGE applies. This is a permastub. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians per WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a supercentrian is notable. well sourced.. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the policy on that? There is almost nothing here beyond the existence of the person Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that even matters. The question here is NOPAGE, not notability. EEng (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Kinda thinking that she belongs on the List_of_Swedish_supercentenarians and does not really need an article in its own right -- just that there isn't much to this story, other than she lived, really really long, then died. But there are a few references. I think this could go either way depending on how the closing admin interprets guidelines about this sort of article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT really isnt a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is ILIKEIT. Problem is: what is there in this article? Consider this sentence in the article (as of December 1 2015) -- At the age of 47, she began her married life with Ernst in a childless marriage that lasted 32 years until Ernst's death in 1968. How is that relevant? Does it have anything to do with her living to an old age? Isn't the only fact in this article that she lived much much longer than most people? So let's include that one piece of information on a list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, Tom's Ulcer, we meet again, eh? EEng (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. EEngingstone, I presume?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Engslove EEng (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides the appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to support a rather clear claim of notability in an article of appropriate size and scope rather in keeping with the typical size of our five million Wikipedia articles. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Size" isn't the question for NOPAGE; it's whether any of that size is made up of anything anyone wants to read. EEng (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes a rather claim of notability. The claim is backed up with multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to create an article of appropriate size and scope. The article would be even more substantial in the absence of removal of sourced content by those arguing for deletion of the article. The WP:NOPAGE / WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument has been addressed here and elsewhere; insisting that the deletion decision is based on the question if an article "is made up of anything anyone wants to read" is the clearest possible demonstration that IDONTLIKEIT is the only argument being offered. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether material is anything (any but a very few) readers would care to read is exactly the sort of editorial decision made thousands of times a day, and has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Despite your "addressing" the NOPAGE argument here and elsewhere, almost all these NOPAGE nominations are closing Merge, or Redirect. EEng (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians per WP:GNG/WP:NOPAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 December 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be notable other than her age which is covered already in List of Swedish supercentenarians. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is very well-sourced so erasing it would be rather strange. She was the oldest person ever from Sweden at one time, which clearly is notable. The anti-supercentenarian crew seems to be opposed to having an article for anyone that was featured several times in media because of their longevity. We have already have this debate one octillion times, and most people believe that you can be notable due to your longevity. Otherwise people such as Jeanne Calment or Sarah Knauss wouldn't have received the attention they got. 930310 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Yes the debates continue, but usually the answer is delete and redirect to a list. Legacypac (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it is the obvious choice for abandoned permastubs. Esquivalience ^t 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. The article of Astrid Zachrison was (incorrectly) deleted, and the argument for keeping Zachrison's article was stronger. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 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.