Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Schuler (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 delete. Sandstein 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Schuler

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ella Schuler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Time for another AfD here, the one earlier this year had some significant SPA issues. All local, routine coverage all consisting of various steps of her Not Dying; while it's nice, simply having measurable brain waves is not notable. WP:NOPAGE, and no real place to redirect this either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE local coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that the oldest in Kansas is notable. The content of the article is routine trivia fancruft. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded far down on the List of American supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated in previous AFD, this is a clear pass of WP:GNG through multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources. It is clearly not "one event" because 1) the coverage goes from 2009 to 2011 and 2) it's a person. The coverage is far beyond WP:ROUTINE because 1) it is much more than "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism" and 2) WP:ROUTINE only applies to the notability of events, not people. While I understand that some editors hold the position that such topics are not notable, that boils down to some variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which of course is not a reason to delete. There is no policy violation, no guideline has been crossed, no rule has been broken--there is adequate coverage and the subject is notable. It has been assessed as a "start" class, although I can see an argument that it's a stub. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I read over your arguments there, and they don't pass the laugh test. "She lived" is not "significant coverage", as the numerous AfDs on these people demonstrate. None of the sources you raise there talk about her in any meaningful way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incredibly off base. the 2009 and 2011 articles are feature-length articles: one is 24 paragraphs, the other is 22 paragraphs. The other references include other details and you can read in the Wiki article that it is more than just "she lived" -- enough data is gathered to create a short article with details about the subject's life. Oh, and I'm unfamiliar with any Wikipedia policy, rule, guideline, or essay called "the laugh test" but I am familiar with WP:IDONTLIKEIT which it seems is your argument here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a New England resident, pretty much every first selectman has a two articles of roughly equivalent length in a local and state newspaper. They are most definitely not notable on that basis. This is what we have here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for the "first selectman" comparison, does that coverage exist of passing mentions or is there in-depth coverage of the individual over several years from multiple sources? Can you provide some examples?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the oldest living person in a US state for some time is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not any achievement that would make or not make any person notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is the coverage of the person that would make a person notable or not notable. This person has the coverage in the news. The standard is: "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." The standard is not based on what a majority of editors involved in a discussion may think the person's achievements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement on the list of American supercentenarians among the 100 oldest American people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG talk 09:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I wrote entails any personal preference. Read it again. Not everything that's written in a newspaper deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. There is nothing notable about this person besides her age, hence it's enough that Wikipedia records her name and age. We have lists for this. — JFG talk 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you wrote entails personal preference. Take the statement "There is nothing notable about this person besides her age" -- in that phrase, you admit the subject is notable but still attempt to argue that the article should be deleted. That personal point of view is precisely what is described in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not" (I apologize for making these statements personal and I believe that JFG is acting in good faith, I just believe the editor is incorrect).--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, thanks for your kind words. We just happen to disagree on a matter of editorial judgment, and we can leave it at that. — JFG talk 14:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also dislike the campaign to remove all supercentenarians, and the language in which it is conducted. The arguments are not logical - the Mona Lisa model's life and deeds were not notable either, she is only notable because a famous artist painted her portrait, and the portrait is now also famous - but apparently somehow the painting's and artist's notability transfer to the sitter. Anyway, as far as supercentenarians are concerned, I prefer to look at whether they were notable, in their extreme old age, with significant coverage outside their home state. If that evidence exists, then I think they meet WP:GNG. In this case, I don't find evidence of coverage outside her home states (Nebraska and Kansas), so I think she may have had only local notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I was trying to say is that I try to judge the notability or otherwise of supercentenarians individually, on the criteria for notability, and doing that I find that some are and some are not notable. What I don't like is the attitude of the nominators and those editors who give as a reason for deleting that it's not notable to have a pulse, and dismiss evidence of notability. I have just voted Keep on some other supercentenarians AfDs, and looked at others who certainly look as if they meet WP:ANYBIO, but to argue Keep properly I will need more time to investigate sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2018 (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.