Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (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 no consensus. There are a number of decent rationales here, and whilst the Keeps outnumber the Deletes, a number of the former are brand new or fairly new accounts that have never been near AfD before. When you discard the obviously invalid !votes, we have it at 6-6. Obviously, this means the article can be re-nominated at any point. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Sarah Knauss (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)

This person's only claim to notability was her advanced age. Her name and age are properly recorded in various tables, such as List of American supercentenarians and List of the verified oldest people. Available sources do not cover her life and deeds in any noteworthy detail, and the article offers nothing more than trivia, hence WP:NOPAGE applies. — JFG ^talk 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her husband was a local Republican leader, how many wars she lived through, how many presidential administrations she lived through, etc. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. In her own words, "So what?" Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the five lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"She avoided the Reaper longer than most" is an extreme understatement. Specifically, she avoided the Reaper longer than every other American whose age can be verified. Futurist110 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and she has five separate list entries informing readers about her unusual age. Nothing more is needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a revision of Wikipedia policy to explicitly admit that being verified as living an absolutely amazing amount of time makes one much more notable than Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is desperately needed. LE (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. Go nominate that article for deletion. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep Per the two previous AFD nominations that were both withdrawn. Passes WP:GNG. Are you even serious with this nomination ? Did you look through the first two ? You should withdraw your nomination. Into the Rift (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Rift has been blocked as a sockpuppet. EEng 04:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should he withdraw? The last nomination was 3 years ago and the first one 11(!) years ago. People are asked not to renominate within 6 months, and this is clearly longer than 6 months. » Shadowowl | talk 15:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oldest something is not autonotable and the person is not significant. A perfect candidate for a list, not an full article. » Shadowowl | talk 15:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is the 2nd verified oldest person EVER. She is certainly notable. RightGot (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — RightGot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Beyound she is the second oldest person, at that time her age received news coverage and since then nobody lived that age once more. If she is not relevant so Jeanne Calment is neither. --IacobusBr (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — IacobusBr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Where to start... point me to this overwhelming news coverage. There's certainly no evidence of it in the article. And WP:WAX is relevant, especially as Calment was notable for more than being super old. Maybe a mini up at most, but certainly not enough for a standalone article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination) participants: EEng (talk · contribs), 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs), Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs), Alansohn (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Ollie231213 (talk · contribs), Nathan (talk · contribs), Valoem (talk · contribs), JaconaFrere (talk · contribs), Masem (talk · contribs), Bodgey5 (talk · contribs), Ravenswing (talk · contribs), Legacypac (talk · contribs), and 930310 (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I said at AfD2, , We have very reasonably gotten much more limited in our coverage of supercentenarians over the years, but deleting the article on someone who actually has been the verifiable world's oldest person is carrying things to the level of utter absurdity. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is per WP:NTEMP, we have had two AfD discussions so far that have proven her notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the question; it's NOPAGE. EEng 04:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect to appropriate list. As usual in these cases, the issue isn't notability but NOPAGE. There are literally two sentences about her life in the entire article, other than when she died:Sarah DeRemer Clark was born on September 24, 1880, in Hollywood, Pennsylvania, a small coal mining village. She married Abraham Lincoln Knauss in 1901. The absurdity of the remaining strained fancruft is almost painful:

At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder, then thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). In 1998, she became the world's oldest person when 117-year-old Canadian Marie-Louise Meilleur of Quebec died. When her family members told her of her newfound fame, her response was a smile and "So what?" ... Knauss lived through seven wars involving the U.S. (including both World Wars) and the administrations of 23 presidents (from Rutherford B. Hayes to Bill Clinton). At her death, she was one of seven living generations of her family. She died just thirty-three hours before the 2000 year celebrations began, which were sometimes reported as having just missed living into a third century, although the 21st century and the 3rd millennium actually began on January 1, 2001 ... died of natural causes in Allentown, Pennsylvania on December 30, 1999 at Phoebe Home (now known as Phoebe Allentown, a subsidiary of Phoebe-Devitt Homes, Inc.)

The lessons on calendars, wars, and presidents, and the bit about the parent company of the nursing home, are just delicious. A perfect NOPAGE case. EEng 04:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOPAGE applies. I think EEng is being charitable saying there are two sentences about her. The town description "a small coal mining villiage" is not about her and knowing the name of her non-notable husband "Abraham Lincoln Knauss" does little to help us understand her life. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I wrote the following in AfD2: "20-Mule-Team Keep: Oh for pity's sake. Passes the GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote. I understand that Xxxxx is waving around NOPAGE with all the force and furor that your average American Republican politician screams "Liberal! Liberal! Liberaaaaalll!!" -- as if the mere word is a trump card that automatically supersedes all other considerations or arguments -- but sooner or later the fact must be faced that it's not that the Keep proponents don't understand his argument, we don't agree with it. The Knauss article is, I freely concede, poorly written and longer on irrelevant blather than on encyclopedic fact, but that's a content dispute, not an appropriate issue for AfD." My feelings have not changed in the three years since, except to add that the So She Was The Oldest Living Human Being, So What? premise being pushed by some of the Delete proponents could be just as readily pushed on damn near every biographical article on Wikipedia. We do not keep or reject articles based on "So What?" We do so using well-established guidelines on notability. The subject meets the fundamental one. Ravenswing 07:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's apparent that you really don't understand the NOPAGE argument, since you're still talking about notability, and NOPAGE has nothing to do with notability. EEng 08:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly enough, I get to repeat another quote from AfD2, this one to you: "@EEng, let's see if I can phrase this in terms unlikely to mistake. Yes, I have read NOPAGE. Yes, I have read your arguments. I do not agree with you. What about that is so hard to understand? I'm sorry ... if you find the consensus against you bewildering, but it is obvious that more editors reject your curious interpretation of that section as meaning "Any article that any one editor argues can be redirected into a broader topic must be redirected into a broader topic" than otherwise. I am among them." Indeed, NOPAGE does not talk about notability (however much it's part of WP:N). What you did not understand three years ago and do not seem to understand now is that there is nothing about NOPAGE that supersedes or overrules the GNG. Ravenswing 17:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Those who refer to WP:NOPAGE ignore that being the second oldest human is something that is researched by many people. Wikipedia should provide the necessary facts for journalists and scholars. For scientists judging about a longevity claim, the personal dates of the person (not just birthday and age) are extremely important for judging about the reliability of a claim. Jansan (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons I cited in the two prior AFD discussions and the rationale proffered by User:Knowledgekid87 and User:Jansan. WP:No page is a subpart of WP:Notability. Easily meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And after all the sources above... where's the article? Living and dying certainly isn't enough for a page, and the sources in question go into no detail beyond this. Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs about who did and didn't receive enough coverage for an actual standalone page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is complete, referenced and obviously WP:Notable. You are merely rehashing arguments that were heard (and better argued at the time) and rejected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that this article is complete is more evidence that it doesn't need a standalone page. When only a couple sentences are about her, and the rest is borderline ridiculous cruft about what happened by virtue of her not dying; this is not a competition with milestones. Once stripped of that, we're left with a paragraph that neatly fits as a minibio. The puffery EEng details above is just filler. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This woman was well known for her last two years, covered in multiple media. That she is a poster child for the extraordinary notability of attaining extraordinary longevity puts her in the crosshairs of those determined to deny that notability but this deletion pogrom needs to be stopped cold. LE (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — LE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Because I vote against multiple attempts to delete supercentenarian biographies, those who start multiple attempts to delete supercentenarian biographies hang that tag on my votes in an attempt to discredit me. But my contrib history clearly shows that it's far from the only subject on which I make contributions. LE (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pogroms and crosshairs... just like old times. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd be better entitled to wax indignant over LE's language if you hadn't tried to discredit an editor with 670 live edits on many different subjects as a fly-by-night SPA. Ravenswing 18:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think LE's "arguments" did a rather fine job of discrediting themselves without my help... besides, come back to me when you've dealt with this for 8 years. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're playing "mine is bigger than yours" games, come back to me when you've dealt with this for thirteen years. Eeeeesh, seriously?? Ravenswing 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is only 2nd out of ca. 7 billion (actually it would be more if you count ongoing and additive world population since recorded history began). Her achievement is far above the norm as of the date she expired. As the BBC writes: "There are currently seven billion people alive today and the Population Reference Bureau estimates that about 107 billion people have ever lived. This means that we are nowhere near close to having more alive than dead."Stephenson, Wesley (February 4, 2012). "Do the dead outnumber the living?". BBC News. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her achievement, as you say, is fully recorded at List of the verified oldest people, where her #2 status is even more visible, and her age is easily compared to other supercentenarians. The rest of the article has nothing to say about her life and deeds. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The second-oldest fully documented supercentenarian in history is notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to what policy or guideline? CommanderLinx (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The several "keep" !votes saying that being very old is notable are not based in any policy (and are therefore likely to be ignored by the closing admin). In addition, in a sense the question of notability is moot, as WP:NOPAGE obviously applies. The little that's worth mentioning about this person can be included in the appropriate list article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by OP – If the article is deleted, the name "Sarah Knauss" should be redirected to our List of the verified oldest people, in order to facilitate search. — JFG ^talk 12:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG and Mr Thirteen. Old people like this typically get the coverage needed to at least make a start class article worthwhile, this does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG and Mr. Thirteen. Julia Kinsley (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Julia Kinsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE and another brand new account that figured out how to vote in AFD's. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One more vote to keep. Sarah Knauss is the second ever oldest person validated, she is notable enough to have an article of her own, and just to point out the inconsistency, for example: there are many articles for minor sport figures that are not that famous and are kept. It is very lopsided and unjust to just delete the article of the second oldest validated person ever. --Garlicolive (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Garlicolive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please provide some policy based reasons for keeping instead of WP:WAX and WP:NOTAVOTE. Because no notability guideline or policy says "Oldest X is notable". Note that this edit is the above accounts first edit to Wikipedia. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am adding the NOTAVOTE tag due to the presence of at least three brand new accounts that somehow figured out how to vote in AFD's as some of their first edits. I suspect some canvassing has been going on somewhere again. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've lost interest in these supercentenarian AFDs, but FWIW editors who came here because they received a notification from a mysterious IP should probably disclose that fact. Into the Rift (talk · contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after this. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there was off-wiki canvassing going on, given the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just found this discussion by chance as I was researching around longevity. So the necessity of keeping this page kind of speaks for itself. Also, there are currently some discussion around the longest living person ever, Jeanne Calment, and if she actually lived as long as claimed. [[1]]. That could lead to more interest in the no 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V95micfa (talk • contribs) 09:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Do tell, how did you come across this after 6 years of total inactivity? It seems like such an amazing coincidence... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG, and per NOPAGE there is plenty of context to provide information about this topic as a standalone, there is enough information in this article that to combine several articles of this length and depth would make the result unweildly, and sourcing is more than sufficient, passing GNG and all. Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia and a specialist encyclopedia. Yes, she is notable only because of her age, but that is notability nonetheless. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic information about topics of general and specialist interest. This particular article is of general interest, there are many, many people beyond those who obsess over every supercentenarians who are interested in encyclopedic information about the oldest person ever from the United States. The article violates nothing in WP:NOT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 5 December 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.