Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Stevenson (3rd 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 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Stevenson

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. The article consists solely of trivia about oldest people who came before or after her. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. There is no article; it's just a factoid about who was the oldest person before her and oldest after she died. There is no policy that "the oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Her name, life dates, nationality and record are already recorded on a list at Oldest people. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nom and the above are spot on. This article is a perfect example of why WP:NOPAGE is a thing. There is no article here. It restates information already on the table at Oldest people. Given that every single source tells us "born, became oldest living person, died", she's better off on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Alice Stevenson (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.
Cunard (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't tell us anything that isn't already in a table so no mini-bio is needed. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to preserve except trivia about longevity. Opposing redirect on this one. — JFG ^talk 11:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing worth keeping just trivia, the biographies in the List of British supercentenarians seem to serve no purpose at all as they are just an addition of pointless trivia "met the Queen mother at age 109"..."outlived her siblings"..."gave up smoking at 84"..."put her longevity down to "living a quiet life""..."had she lived another 6 days she would have broken a record"..."secret to longevity was "never look back, always look forward, which she is certainly doing"". Is this the stuff of encyclopedias? --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:13, 7 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.