Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luo Meizhen

: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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

=[[Luo Meizhen]]=

:{{la|Luo Meizhen}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luo_Meizhen Stats])

:({{Find sources|Luo Meizhen}})

person only claimed to be oldest living person never verified dont see what makes them notable Redsky89 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep Notable as the oldest Chinese supercentenarian claimant Old Time Music Fan (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - Anyone can claim to be 127, but it would be really surprising if this isn't just another charlatan.Deb (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:Apparently Chinese authorities recognize the claim so that adds a certain level of notability to it even if Guinness hasn't verified it. There are other articles here on disputed claims. BenW (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability isn't based on our subjective opinions on what is notable, but on guidelines. From that perspective, there's arguably concerns with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (is there any enduring notability here? I don't see it), but overall this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. She seems to being having a brief burst of attention now that she has died, and she had one or two articles on each of her birthdays from the "125th" on. None of the coverage is particularly impressive to me and, of the four sources on the page, the first one doesn't qualify as a reliable source and the last two are just copies of her obituary. Most of the articles are "she's old", "she died", "here are some statistics about related topics", nothing that qualifies for the level of coverage that is expected on the subject. And that's what the key issue for me is: how much of an encyclopedic value will the sources allow us to say on the subject? Not much, from what I have seen. To me, this means she lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish her from thousands of other individuals claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Redirect to longevity claims is probably fine, but probably also pointless. Canadian Paul 03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

:*Comment My basis to keep the article is not based on opinion, but by literal interpretation of the guideline set out at WP:BASIC, namely: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This is clearly the case, even if the sources (and there are many different ones) refer to her age or death, it is exactly this (her age) that makes her notable. Most notable people have articles about them that refer to the thing(s) that make them notable. This case is no different. Given the very high number of secondary sources, it is obviously notable to live 127 years! It is worth noting that not all the articles were published after her death. You may speculate about whether coverage will be ongoing, but it is not our place to speculate in these debates - we must, as you say, base the decision on application of the guideline. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete As per CanadianPaul. Trivial mentions ≠ Notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Bah, much younger than me, but worth keeping, meeting WP:GNG. Needs cleanup though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I really do not get the fascination with deleting articles. If one person thinks that something is notable, let it stay. Wikipedia needs to change the way it is run and stop deleting articles, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.130.28 (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think my dog is awesome but that doesn't mean he's notable. Wikipedia needs to keep some standards. --Jsderwin (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete no proof of age and no form of notability. this article should have been deleted right away. 68.192.139.179 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete definitely not notable. anyone can say that they are 127 years old but they are not notable unless it has been verified. this person wasn't notable before they died so I don't see what makes them notable now. just because someone dies doesn't make them notable. Dman41689 (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete No current reliable sources. Can always be readded if reliable source appears in the future. --Jsderwin (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Relister's comment: I closed this as "delete" but am reconsidering this: with few exceptions, the "delete" and "keep" opinions above are poorly argued. Discussion should focus on whether this person meets the sourcing requirements of WP:V and WP:N.  Sandstein  08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::Comment: Thanks. I have set out my argument above and won't bludgeon by commenting on each contribution. I will ask, however, that the ultimate decision takes into account the serious discussion in the context of WP policy and disregards (or at least places much less emphasis on) personal opinions and discussion without policy backing. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep: As per Wikipeterproject. I have added other sources - articles in Xinhua which states that her status was reported in the China Gerontological Society report. More work on the article and getting sources should help more firmly establish notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

:: PS also covered in UK press - have added The Telegraph. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

  • Keep - multiple reliable sources establishes notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

: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.