Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Simone Capony

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 merge to List of French supercentenarians. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Simone Capony (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)

I think the prior AFDs have shown a disfavor towards separate articles for individuals who only notability is longevity of a national scale (based on the WP:NOPAGE essay) with some merging to a place like List of French supercentenarians. Here, of the two sources, one is the GRG table which provides nothing more than would be found on her line at the French supercentenarians table and the other is a WP:ROUTINE obituary you would find for any person who died as the oldest French person (and which justifies this section but not each person's individual article). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge to French list. Nothing to add to nom statement. EEng (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to French list. The available coverage does not, in my opinion, satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article under WP:N. Canadian Paul 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Redirect to the French list. I've tried to conform the article to the sole source, but even after that, there's only a sole source. The sole source we have states, explicitly, that it is relying on local media. If there's only one source and the source restricts its own verifiability to local media, the subject doesn't comply with our general notability guideline. In the alternative, if there were additional sources, but only for these same facts, this would not argue for a stand-alone article. With this paucity of facts, everything in the article can be fully accommodated on the French list. See the essay WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (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.