Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice Sanborn

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 no consensus. Verifiability seems to be no longer contested, and we have no consensus as to notability, so default to keep. Sandstein 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Sanborn

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

Non-notable person. Only reference is an unreliable blog. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – One of the few times in Wikipedia that the only thing you have to do to become notable is to live long enough. Ms. Sanborn qualifies under supercentenarians. I was able to find the following reference that is from a 3rd party – independent – verifiable – creditable source. [1]. I’ll in-line cite it in the article. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. It's clear that the article is under construction. She is verified to be the world's 10th-oldest person here:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM

adding that as a source might be COI, but others could find it. Note the claimed age is born in 1895, but the 1896 record comes from census data.Ryoung122 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable per WP:BIO as interpreted for supercentenarians. ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing in WP:BIO that says people 110 and older are einherently notable and must be given a directory-type article. Please point out what you are citing. Edison (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Ryoung122. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more non-trivial reliable sources can be found. A blog and one local news story is not sufficient. Would be willing to change my !vote if more sources can be found. Cheers, CP 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state-local/at-114-one-of-texas-supercentenarians-dies-1.949307 There is a source. 65.81.247.9 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong delete Would you vote to keep it once she's died? There is nothing notable about her whatsoever beyond thus far having remained alive. The article, if kept, will forever be a stub as there is nothing notable whatsoever about her beyond her age. The moment she passes, her notability passes with her. Nothing against the woman herself, but I can't see how she comes anywhere close to meriting a separate article. Simply a mention on the 10-oldest link should be more than sufficient. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dude, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary --Longevitydude (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have read that. I don't think she's notable now, nor is it likely that she will do anything notable before she dies. Simply being one of the billions of non-dead people on the planet isn't, IMHO, notable. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines are fairly implicit and her longevity is noteworthy and if she keeps living and those ahead of her on the list keep dying, she can end up higher in the ranks and garner further notability. Besides the fact that this isn't a paper encyclopedia and that the guidelines seem to indicate that she classifies as being noteworthy, I've found a few more sources for her [2][3] if it helps KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oldest people where she is already on the list of "Ten oldest people" and can remain on the list of "Oldest people since 1955" after she goes to her reward. Fails WP:BLP1E, where the event is "staying alive." The well-documented very oldest people are collectively encyclopedic, expressing examples of the extremes within the human species, but if all they are known for is being alive for a long time, they do not need individual directory-type articles, since Wikipedia is not a directory. Her biography is apparently, other than the continued living, no different than if she had passed at age 90. Edison (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to say her biography would be the same if she died at 90, if she died at 90 she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be Texas' oldest person. 74.249.149.87 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the part where I said "other than the continued living?" Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that part, and if she didn't continue living she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be the oldest person in Texas.67.33.119.28 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (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.