Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Madigan (2nd 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 per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 9 -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Madigan

[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)

Time for another AfD here, the first was a botched mess right from the start and had a bunch of SPAs generating noise. Yet another non-notable supercentenarian, despite the efforts to puff this up the coverage is all routine or, in one instance, a passing mention. Maybe a redirect or a minibio, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wouldn't say the coverage is routine; I'm seeing substantive articles from different media outlets from different years. The subject otherwise wouldn't meet WP:BIO beyond meeting the GNG, but that's not required. Ravenswing 20:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could maybe see a minibio, but most of the articles about her basically are local/statewide saying "Her Heart is still beating". As an aside the stuff about her political views is ridiculously undue weight (and not attributed to boot), and after that... we're left with maybe two paragraphs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I expect we'll just have to disagree. Ravenswing 07:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making a note to reaffirm my delete vote. The sources described below are big names, but again tell us almost nothing of the subject other than that she lived and had political views. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at most a minibio. Legacypac (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is almost non-existent. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure case of WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the 100 oldest American people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable WP:GNG with articles in the Huffpost [1] and Independent [2], which I don't believe are sourced in the article. She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [3]. She is notable for her age, which is another way of saying she is notable for her lifespan and reliable sources cover basic aspects of her lifespan. routine does not apply here because the reliable sources are about her and there is nothing routine about living to 115.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the articles found by I am One of Many, I find an article in National Geographic[4], in the Herald&Review from Illinois, about her being the oldest person on Twitter[5], in the Detroit Free Press, which says that she was also on Facebook[6], and in Metro US[7]. This is not routine coverage - she meets WP:SIGCOV; and it runs over several years, so WP:SUSTAINED. The article could certainly be improved to include these sources and the information in them, but that is not a reason for deletion WP:NEXIST RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! The Herald&Review says she was the oldest person on Twitter, and the Detroit Free Press says that she was also on Facebook! That's real notability! E Eng 01:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to an appropriate list. Perhaps the best NOPAGE case ever. E Eng 01:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by RebeccaGreen and I am One of Many provide sustained substantial coverage of Bernice Madigan and establish that she passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where at WP:N does it say joining facebook or twitter makes you notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not say that joining Facebook or Twitter makes someone notable. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does say that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required for notability. The sources found by RebeccaGreen and I am One of Many provide significant coverage of and are reliable and independent of the subject.

Cunard (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS coverage alone does not mandate an individual article. Per WP:NOPAGE, Ms. Madigan's few biographical facts can be merged into List of American supercentenarians, which already covers a few similar cases. — JFG ^talk 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One more vote to keep. Bernice Madigan has reached the very rare age of 115, how is that non-notable when you consider the current human life expectancy? Deleting her article would be inconsistent, Bernice Madigan had plenty of coverage in the media, this cannot be discarded --Garlicolive (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Garlicolive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We usually suggest newcomers spend time on article improvement to learn our policies rather than jumping directly into AfD discussions. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JFG. She is not independently notable, and the coverage of her is mostly routine. But not a keep by any means. SportingFlyer talk 22:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and NBIO. Her life was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Any NOPAGE redirect should bear in mind WP:PAGELENGTH on the target. schetm (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? The only thing the article tells us about her life is: Madigan did not take any medicine nor a daily vitamin. Neither do I, thank God. How is that "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"? — JFG ^talk 23:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One's extreme longevity, as documented in RS, passes the test. schetm (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. If the only noteworthy attribute of this person is her age, her presence among the top 100 oldest Americans is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 00:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the second part of my argument - we need to keep the WP:PAGELENGTH of the target in mind. If we're gonna be nopaging a bunch of these bios, the target page will exceed the recommended article length. Plus, when you get a page full of minibios, they can be nuked without going to AfD, which bypasses any consensus made here to redirect. I have a serious problem with that. What we need are some specific notability guidelines for longevity articles, and sooner, rather than later, preferably before another article is brought to AfD. But, in this case, bearing all that in mind, I believe it is preferable to keep the stand alone article for the time being. schetm (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do need notability guidelines for this subject matter. Feel free to help craft them at WT:LONGEVITY, where they are being discussed. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGELENGTH shouldn't matter since her name, age and birth/death places and dates are already on the list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome is to merge and create a minibio, as was proposed by the nom, we absolutely do need to keep WP:PAGELENGTH in mind. At any rate, my concern about such minibios being nuked, overturning consensus at AfD, which has happened within the past month, has not been addressed. I therefore reaffirm my keep *vote. schetm (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some Delete voters seem to forget that some supercentenarians receive no or very little coverage before their death, and some receive a lot, therefore some meet WP:GNG and some do not. I would suggest that a notability guideline for supercentenarians is quite simple. For those whose age qualifies them for inclusion on a list, but who receive little or no significant coverage before their death, being in the list is sufficient. However, if, for whatever reasons, people found them remarkable enough to write about them in reliable, independent sources, or to include them in documentaries, etc, over a period of time and with some details, then Wikipedia should reflect that significant coverage with individual articles. I did not think that Wikipedia was concerned with judging the merits of the reasons for significant coverage of individuals. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:12, 9 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.