Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Weaver (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Gertrude Weaver}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gertrude_Weaver_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Gertrude Weaver}})

WP:NOPAGE. Consists entirely of longevity fancruft. Suggest redirecting to an appropriate list. EEng 12:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. Of the three lists featuring her, this one has the most specific information. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable WP:GNG with with articles in the Washington Post and The Guardian demonstrating national and international notability. The argument for deletion is "Consists entirely of longevity fancruft", but the contents of the article is from the Washington Post etc. The reason we have criteria for notability is you can't build and encyclopedia on I just don't like it arguments or I like it arguments. -- Unsigned comment by someone
• :You haven't addressed the basis for the nomination, which isn't notability but rather WP:NOPAGE. The single face that is even arguably nontrivial -- that she was the child of sharecroppers -- can go in a list entry. EEng 03:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• ::As you know, after the American Civil war, slavery was transformed in part into sharecropping. She wasn't merely the child of sharecroppers, but was born into sharecropping and all the hardships that brought. Having been one of the oldest African American women to have ever lived, there is a reasonable expectation that even more detail about her life will be published in reliable sources. It is also a huge challenge for Wikipedia to expand and maintain articles on women and minorities.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

:::::You still aren't addressing the NOPAGE argument. EEng 05:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

::::Your argument that she deserves an article because of her family's profession of sharecropping is absurd. Farming has always been a tough industry to make a livelihood in and there were countless millions of sharecroppers, and no one deserves an article based on their gender or race, least of all to make other people feel good or righteous. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

:::::Your argument is pure WP:I don't like it. You have no idea what sharecropping is, it was not a profession it was slavery for blacks in the South. You also need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's criteria for notability. @ENG, first the NOPAGE is not a policy and not a reason to delete a page, it is a consideration when creating an article. Nevertheless, I did address your concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

::::::Of course NOPAGE {{tq|isn't policy}}; none of the notability guidelines are policy -- they're guidelines. And if you can't see that {{tq|a consideration when creating an article}} is therefore equally a consideration when deleting an article, then I don't think further discussion will be productive. EEng 18:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

:::::::We have thousands of articles on athletes, for example, which don't meet NOPAGE. NOPAGE's weight when compared to GNG and that this is an article about a black woman, gives NOPAGE zero weight. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

::::::::WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, plus you clearly still don't understand that NOPAGE has nothing to do with notability. And you better fucking think twice before pulling the race bullshit again, because I've had just about enough of it. But what's wrong with me? Why am I bothering? As predicted, further discussion isn't productive. EEng 19:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::You really need to take a deep breath and relax and don't make assumptions about other's intentions. The problem is that non-white people and women are disproportionately under represented in Wikipedia. For example, Bernice Madigan is also under consideration for deletion and she was white. Currently, it is less likely that her article will be deleted than this one even though she is clearly less notable and there is even less to write about her. I would never accuse you of racial and gender bias, but I do think that it is important to consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions when there is a known bias Wikipedia coverage.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::No, we don't "consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions". We consider the sources available. Bernice Madigan is equally a NOPAGE case. EEng 01:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her health history, her family tree, standard longevity secret, and glorification of claimed records. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as none of the sources talk about her in any meaningful depth. She was born and raised in unfortunate circumstances and made a decent life out of it, which is certainly nice but not itself notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I don't find much coverage of her - even when she became the oldest American, it was reported nationally in the US, but using a single Associated Press report, so she doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Other than that, coverage seems mostly to be local. There is the Time article, but still not multiple sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:21, 28 November 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.