Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Conner

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. There is consensus that there is insufficient sourcing available for a standalone page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Conner

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

With very limited local coverage of the WP:ROUTINE nature and basically nothing about her life or accomplishments other then she lived, had a family, and eventually died, there is no notability established here. Per WP:NOPAGE she belongs on the appropriate lists but no stand alone page. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, an entry in List of supercentenarians from the United States should suffice. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the oldest person in Texas is notable. And being one of the overall longest living people ever is notable. Also per WP:GNG. We dont delete articles on WP:IDONTLIKEIT or article quality. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She was the oldest living person in Texas at the time of her death, but not the oldest ever person in/from Texas. From what I've seen of similar AfD discussions, we don't generally keep articles about people simply because they didn't die for a long time. For Conner we don't have much else about her than a grandchild count. Sionk (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. A GRG table, a dead link to her obituary and two routine birthday articles that go to the same website (suggesting local coverage only) do not establish notability. Removing the longevity trivia leaves you with a name, age, country, nickname and how many siblings and grandkids she had. Nothing of interest here. Entry in a "list of" is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect One dead link, GRG, and two local TV bits =/= sigcov. And see WP:NOPAGE. E Eng 13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States largely per CommanderLinx who sums up my line of thought. Blackmane (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. There's no reason for this to have a stand-alone article. The assessment of the "sources" above is spot-on, as is the reference to the WP:NOPAGE essay. David in DC (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. The available sources do not appear to satisfy the requirement for a standalone page per WP:N, although there might be enough for an entry via a merge. Canadian Paul 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States (with the history preserved under the redirect). Several editors have suggested a merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright, the page history must be preserved if a merge occurs. Therefore, I recommend retaining the history under the redirect so that interested editors can selectively merge material to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 31 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.