Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Schuler

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Ella Schuler}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ella_Schuler Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ella Schuler}})

There is no notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest in a state is notable”. The sourcing for this article is all sparse local feature coverage and fails WP:GNG. There isn't even a provided source for her claimed death and two other "sources" in the article violate Wikipedia policy and cannot be used. One is a Facebook post and the other is a self-published website run by her family that evidently doesn't even exist anymore. The only other sources I could find on her WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE generic obituary type sources and a GRG table which tells us nothing other than her name, age and country. Even if these sources meant she was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E should almost certainly apply as there is nothing to say about her other than the basic trivial longevity stuff (born, married, had kids, was oldest in Kansas, died). Her presence on the List of supercentenarians from the United States is enough, as this article is never going to expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB and is primarily acting as a WP:MEMORIAL.

Given off-wiki canvassing problems on this topic in the past, for the record, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep seems to pass WP:GNG through sources cited in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::Look at the article again. I removed dead and invalid sources from the article. The only sources are two PDF's, one of which cites the other as a source for itself, so under WP:GNG, they count as only one source. Both PDF's were features given to local seniors and staff where she lived, nothing more. She's clearly not notable. Care to recast your vote? Newshunter12 (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::I don't think you should have removed all the sources you did--dead links have a special method of handling and offline-sources still apply. If there was any reason to believe the references were false that would be grounds to remove; but just having a "dead link" does not invalidate the article. In any event, another article has been found. I stand by my original assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

::::The article was not actually at the link provided or created on that site; I was being fair in believing that it at one time really did exist, and so labeled the issue as being link dead since I couldn't verify that it ever existed. The link itself worked fine. The new source is welcomed, but local news feature coverage like that doesn't pass WP:GNG. It's considered insignificant. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::In any event, the Topeka Capital-Journal is the primary paper for the capital of the state of Kansas and has been publishing since 1879, reporting a current circulation of over 25,000. That and the other sources more than surpass GNG. There are other sources that support this but are not included in the article now because they would be redundant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

::::She does not meet WP:GNG. That is all local coverage from where she lived and with all due respect to Ms. Schuler, those articles are nothing more then cheap feature (aka not hard news) coverage of a local curiosity. Those articles were for local entertainment, not spreading remarkable encyclopedic information that now needs to live on Wikipedia forever. Also, even if she passed WP:GNG, which she doesn't, she still fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about her. Living a long time does not make anyone inherently notable. This article comes from a time (2008) when many longevity fans (or family members) mass created articles for every 110+ year old they could, entirely heedless of merit. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

::::::WP:GNG states the following: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This subject meets all of those categories. The Topeka Capital-Journal is really a "regional" paper rather than a "local" paper, but even if it were there is nothing in GNG that disqualifies "local" coverage--the word "local" isn't even anywhere on the page. The "one event" argument does not apply because there is not "one event" that this covers instead is about the individual and the coverage through her life. I'm not seeing how NOPAGE applies other than we simply just seem to disagree.-Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::These are not articles all throughout her life, they are feature articles where readers got to learn basic life info about a local curiosity. This page fails WP:NOPAGE because all there is is the typical longevity trivia (born, got married, had kids, worked, and died). There is nothing encyclopedic to say about her. Also, the fact that her family website and her social media account were plugged into the article, and a claimed relative commented on the articles talk page to decide content, this article seems a thinly veiled way for her family to memorialize her, which violates WP:MEMORIAL. Could you check out this recent AfD on a very similar individual? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bessie_Camm] Schuler's article and this article are very similar, besides the WP:MEMORIAL issues. Such articles are being slowly weeded out from Wikipedia because they don't merit existing in the first place in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

::::::WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. However, multiple feature articles do point toward notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)— 208.54.87.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::No, it does not. By WP:GNG it has one local source in the article and even if the extremely brief GRG source is added, it still doesn't pass. It also fails WP:NOPAGE, WP:BIO1E, and WP:MEMORIAL. This is the second longevity AfD you have added a substance-free keep vote to today [1]. AfD's aren't votes, so such conduct is not in anyway helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newshunter12 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Per Paul McDonald. Into the Rift (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Wasn't the oldest in the country, only her state, and nowhere in the notability guidelines does it say "oldest X is notable". References all appear to be typical WP:ROUTINE old people coverage. Two newsletters from her nursing home, two from the Topeka Capital-Journal (112th birthday and her obituary) and the two external links to KTKA in Topeka. Which I'd argue would all be local coverage because she retired to the area. Even then, there's nothing to say about her other than bare life basics that pad these supercentenarian articles (born, got married, had kids, worked, died). Entry on a list is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• While the obit is certainly a routine article, it does provide useful info. However, the feature article in the capital journal is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE--aside from being a full-length feature article, it provides ample information about the life of the subject and clearly shows significant coverage that is required by WP:GNG. As stated above, "local" is not a consideration for WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect There's arguably more coverage here than usual, so I could support a redirect, but the coverage seems to be local and routine, which does not satisfy WP:N and the general notability guidelines. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• WP:ROUTINE is specifically about events. This article is about a person, not an event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

::This person only has an article because of the event of getting older then most, which is what the coverage was about. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

:::Well, the coverage is dated from 2009 through 2011, and the information covers several aspects of her life over a period of time. Nowhere near "one" event. The article is about the person, not the person's age at death.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

::::The source articles are feature articles about a local curiosity, someone uncommonly old, and talked about universal human characteristics she had like family, marriage (or not), and employment that readers could relate to. These articles and the Wikipedia article itself only exist because she reached an uncommon age (you do understand this is a longevity article right?) and none of these articles would exist if she died a few years younger, including this one. There is also convincing evidence described above that her family likely used this article as a personal memorial (in violation of WP:MEMORIAL) not because her life was so important to other people. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.