Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adele Dunlap

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. A clear consensus to delete. A redirect can be made as part of the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Dunlap (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)

No source verifies that she is the second oldest American, and no explanation on why would that be notable anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. There isn't enough significant reliable source coverage to sustain a separate article. Reliable sources confirm the subject's age, but they don't acknowledge her as the second oldest living American. The best I could find was a passing mention of her in coverage about Goldie Michelson, the oldest living American. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Clear failure of WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage. Apart from the one sentence mention in the above response, the only other sources are routine birthday articles. The latest I could find is from 2014. Guidelines at WP:WOP wikiproject tell us an article such as this belongs on a list, not a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Delete Nothing in this to even justify a redirect. Fails GNG and WP:PERMASTUB. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This, this (which verifies second oldest in America), and this justifies redirecting to the list of supercentenarians, in my opinion, but it falls short of GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect (too early in the morning to decide which). Another article supported by just one gee-whiz source discussing whether or not oatmeal is the key to living forever. EEng 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep EEng's remarks above make it clear he's determined to belittle longevity as a whole, and the second-oldest person in the US - and the oldest EVER from New Jersey - is certainly worth noting. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I see -- and the reason everyone else is recommending deletion/redirection? EEng 01:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At best this person is a case of a long living person born under a situation with clear records, but the article lacks good sources even at that and says nothing of substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Wikipedia should have articles about people only if their biography is notable, which on Wikipedia means covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. This article fails that test. This argument: "...the second-oldest person in the US - and the oldest EVER from New Jersey - is certainly worth noting," sincerely heartfelt though it may be, is not grounded in the logic of our general notability guideline. David in DC (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect as nothing convincing for an actual notable own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Merge to list and redirect': Not enough for a standalone, but really, someone could have just boldly moved it to the list. Keep a redirect so that we don't have it recreated. Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A move would not have succeeded given the editing history of at least one of the users involved in the creation/maintenance of this article. See this, for instance. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of the type of sourcing that would satisfy the requirements at WP:N. Canadian Paul 20:22, 26 May 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.