Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Homan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Florence Homan

Not sure of the worthyness of a page like this and infact any other oldest person in a State. Oldest in the USA or UK or Germany or any other country fair enough. Oldest in the World fine. But oldest in a area of a country no matter how large that area or country is not worthy of a article.Jimmmmmmmmm 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep

    Anyone listed in the Guinness World Records is qualified to have a short article about them.

    *Weak Keep Based on the Supercentenarians category I guess there is a precendent for these articles. I just looked through a few of them and none of them seem to have done anything particularly notable other than being old. This would seem to contradict WP:BIO so I'm not sure what to do. DrunkenSmurf 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep

    1. This user includes stuff that many would consider 'junk' such as some third-rate footballer league that no one outside the UK really cares about. Talk about hypocrisy. He also misspelled 'worthiness,' indicating the mindset of such a claim.

    Ok, enough of that. Florence Homan was born Nov 18 1893. Last I checked, the UK's oldest living person, Annie Knight, was born June 6 1895. In the grand scheme of things, Florence's age is more significant and thus Florence is listed in the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records (p. 67).

    Also, we see that people other than myself have created articles on 'supercentenarians' aged a mere 110 or 111 years old, such as 'Vermont's oldest person.' Thus, like the debate about whether Pluto is a planet, the bar has been set much lower than this.

    Also, User JImmmmmmmm seems to be disrespectful of the USA...we've seen 'oldest in Scotland,' is that just one country or a division? Ohio has 11 million plus persons, more than Ireland and Scotland combined. R Young {yakłtalk} 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Note let's not let this get personal. Sparsefarce 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I did say other page of this nature. Scotland is a country in it's own right so there for you could argue that is a record that is notable for mention on here. Secondly I don't have anything against Americans just over American bias on here. You comment about footballers is exactly what I feel about seeing the same page about no mark American footballers, but I never complained about them, just the inclusion of things like national American sports champion in the news section.

      Back to this page. What is here inclusion in the Guiness book of Records for? Maybe you could elaborate on the page about it. The age of here compared to the oldest person in the UK doesn't matter. The UK is a country Ohio and Vermont are states. London has 6m people would you start an article on the oldest person in London, no because it's pointless. If she isn't the oldest in America I'm not sure what her achievement is. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

      • Comment The USA has 299 million people, the UK 59 million. To expect the UK to get the same amount of coverage is absurd. Instead I employ relative weight. Seen any coverage from Nauru lately?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Alright guys please keep your comments regarding other editors civil. Lets not make this an attack on other users, rather try and focus on the merits of the article itself. DrunkenSmurf 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment So the 299m people in the US are more important than the 60m in the UK. Nice. Be your reckoning if the oldest person in Ohio had been 50 that would have meant they deserved an article. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, making it to age 112 is notable in itself. NawlinWiki 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment But is the oldest person in Ohio the right way the describe her. Being 112 may be notable, but being the oldest person in a area of one country no matter how big is not. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment So now we get down to the REAL issue, User Jimmmm's view of the world sees the USA as one great, giant monolith (no need to know about individual states) while 'Scotland is a country' (even though it's really a subdivision of the UK, which is a country). In fact, I employ relative weights even among the US. Ohio has 11.5 million people, and is one of the most important U.S. states (remember, Ohio decided the 2004 presidential election; no Republican has won the White House without carrying Ohio).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per DrunkenSmurf. I long for the day when we can call these "oldcruft", b/c being old really isn't notable, but so long as there's a bunch of them out there, there's no way we can justifiably single out just this one for deletion. --M@rēino 22:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So now everyone in Ohio is more important that everyone in Scotland. How many times have Ohio played at the world cup then or been represnted at the olympics? Can I have a seat on the parliment of Ohio then please, oh no it doesn't have one does it. It is just a state a part of a country no matter how big it is. There are areas of Russia larger than Ohio and how about all the Aussie states? Will they get this treatment? Of course not. Because Ohio's votes decided the Election that makes it important. Remind me next time then if Maine decides it we'll have the oldest person in Maine article. Or next time the Isle of Wight decides the UK election we'll have the same again. Madness. Ohio my have a lot of article due to it's size and population but being Ohio oldest person is still not Worldly notable achievement. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per User:Ryoung122. Extremely sexy 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per User:Bjf22898. Isn't the Internet THE place to go for all sorts of information? What is the big deal if it is a subdivision of a country or not? It might be interesting to see just who the oldest person in London is, and gee, if I knew I could find it here, it is only one more reason to come to this site and see what is interesting in the land of trivia. What one man deems "useless information" is a gem of knowledge to another. As long as it is true, I say go for it.
  • Delete per nom. Oldest in a country is an objective standard. If we say that oldest person in an individual US state is a valid criteria, then we open a Pandora's box of what level of granularity is acceptable in other countries with highly subjective arguments for differing criteria. Paddles TC 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And, what is the harm in having a finer granularity of information? Bjf22898
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Sparsefarce 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. You are WRONG there. This is NOT an 'indiscriminate collection' of information. It's a collection that's been organized, tested, sifted, and weeded out. You don't see us adding every 109th birthday story that comes along. http://www.crescent-news.com/index.php?tD=05192006

        I don't even add every 110th birthday story. But I think if someone is the world's 12th-oldest person, they deserve at least a paragraph or two. People in the future will ask 'whatever happened to so-and-so' when they read the 2007 Guinness Book. It's a good idea to have the answer. Plus, just maybe we can educate the public a little. If they realize that a 'few' people make it to this age, they might start to understand what the maximum human life span is (122...not 100, not 140).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment OK, now to argument two. Florence Homan was ranked as one of the 'top 15' oldest persons in the world, not just U.S. state. Germany, 82 million persons, has as its oldest person Irmgard von Stephani, born Sept 20 1895...almost two years younger. So, yes, age 112 years 268 days does count for something. We've seen newspaper articles on Meta Buehrer, Toledo's oldest person (died at 109) and Herman Phillips, oldest in Canton, Ohio (died at 109, May 2006). No one ran out to do a 'county-level' article. And the truth is, we can't do Uttar Pradesh because India doesn't have the records for it. In effect, complete records exist for some nations (Japan 100%), partial and incomplete for others (USA) and some nations, no records. Thus, there isn't a whole lot to worry about 'Uttar Pradesh's oldest person.' But in theory, if you have the records, you can apply (even from South America). So that's why we have Maria Capovilla, 116, world's oldest person.

    The current number of supercentenarian articles on Wikipedia is 118, far less than the number of football or baseball players. If we're going to have Wikipedia information on every city and town in America, surely we could do the 'oldest out of 11.5 million people.' Sheesh. This lady was an adult when the Titanic sank. She was older than London's Tower Bridge. Not a single person left in the UK is 112.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment C'mon. Stay cool, as per WP:COOL. If you haven't noticed, I haven't even voted on this. I'm just trying to clarify where I see necessary. Sparsefarce 05:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever you're going to categorize her for, categorize everyone in the category. If you classfied her as a 112 year-old, include all 112-year olds. I'm guessing she is a single-subject of her cateogory, and, that makes it easy to remove her...or include everyone else. User:NealIRC

Comment (Consider this not just about Florence Homan but about articles on persons famous for age).

I categorized Florence Homan as a 'supercentenarian' (persons aged 110+). My general policy is to give every verified person an article who reaches 112.5 (halfway between 112 and 115). Why? Consider the current 'top 10' oldest people, the 9th and 10th-oldest are 112 (but closer to 113). To be more specific, Florence Homan was 112.73 years old.

News-worthiness is also decided by a number of other non-numerical factors, including a person's history, family, and personality. Clearly, this woman had no remaining family and so got only weak media coverage, while someone like Virginia Muise (aged 111), more than a year younger as 'New Hampshire's oldest person,' got multi-state news coverage. In fairness, Florence deserved more. In another state, it was claimed that Olive Dubay, 110, was Michigan's oldest person:

http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2006/08/11/news/local_regional/n ews01.txt

But I didn't do an article on her. At the time, she ranked 58th-oldest in the world. So, while I think this article clearly should stay (and the 'keep' is winning), a real question should not be whether to keep this but what standards should be employed.

I totally disagree with User Jimmm's comments. I wasn't saying that Ohioans were more important than Scots because they were superior or better. I was saying that, given the population of Ohio is over twice that of Scotland, and given Ohio's economic and political strength, it is unwise to simply dismiss a US state. The US is a Federal, not unitary, system. In Russia, governors are often selected by Vladimir Putin. Subdivisions are often just a matter of geographic convenience. Most recognize that, traditionally, national subdivisions of the USA, Canada, and Australia are shown on the map. Anglo-centric? Perhaps. But that's what map-makers do.

As for Florence and Australia, she was in fact older than anyone in Australia at the time (by more than a year). Jimm's comments are like saying the USA can't have the bronze medal because they have the silver. Look at the U.S. Congress. The big state/small state compromise let equal represenation in the Senate, proportional representation in the House. Clearly, it's a split-the difference solution, but each side gave some ground. The bottom line: there is something to be said that '5th-oldest of country X' may not sound like a lot, but look at the other side. The USA is #1 in the world in the 110+ population. Giving the USA more articles thus serves as somewhat proportional representation to reflect this reality. At the same time, no one did an article on Olive Dubay, even though she was older than Switzerland's oldest person (someone did an article on that one). So, like the big state/small state compromise, I believe there is a sensible line here. We are giving the USA a few more articles than 'one country, one article' but in reality, the USA is not getting its due. If anything, the INORDINATE number of British/UK centenarian and supercentenarian articles betray a UK bias. We see among 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' that far more UK soldiers have an article, even if their age were younger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Cummins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Newcombe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roberts_%28veteran%29

Meanwhile, check out Americans, Italians, Germans, Poles, etc without articles.

Living in the USA - 18 veterans Name DOB Nationality Force Served Notes Anderson, Homer 1897 24 December American USA-Balloon Corps Resides in Florida Babcock, John F. 1900 23 July Canadian Canadian Resides in Spokane, Washington Brown, Lloyd 1901 7 October American USA-Navy Resides in Maryland Buchanan, Russell 1900 24 January American USA-Navy Resides in Watertown, Massachusetts, and is also a WWII veteran Buckles, Frank Woodroff 1901 February 1 American USA-Army Resides in West Virginia Coffey, J. Russell 1898 1 September American USA-Army Resides in Ohio

So, 'oldcruft' is OK for the UK, even when not the oldest living veteran, while non-UK veterans get ignored, even if they are older?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_veterans_of_the_First_World_War

Look at the other lists. Italy NO articles, France 13%, Germany 11%, USA 39% coverage, UK 71% (5 of 7) coverage. Clearly, the UK is getting more than its fair share.

But, you might say, that's because the UK Wikipedians have taken the initiative to do more articles. The same might be said for the USA. If you want to start deleting articles, do we really need to know who is a 105-year-old non-combat WWI veteran? And if yes, why not for all the nations, not just one? 68.219.137.224 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

One comment from Jimmm...about Ohio not having a 'parliament'...is totally ridiculous. The USA has a Congress, and Ohio DOES have a legislature. Wow. It's amazing how little people really know about places outside their area.

  • Delete. If she were the oldest person, living or dead, in Ohio, ever, I could see it. But she was oldest living person in Ohio only for 2.5 months earlier this year. There's always an "oldest living person" in Ohio, and will be for the foreseeable future. VivianDarkbloom 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep—Not only is the information verifiable, but there is no compelling reason to delete this, which is what the burden of proof should be. Ardric47 06:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As there is no encyclopedic reason to keep information on her. Oldest is really not significant. GRBerry 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If she had lived to be the oldest person in the USA (not only in Ohio) and/or to be among the top ten then the article would be of interest but so it is not.
  • Keep. Listed in Guinness, therefore notable. WP:NOT paper. --Myles Long 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a drastically small subset of people qualify as supercentenarians, all members of this subset due to its minute size in contrast to the 5 billion people on earth should qualify... There are more pokemon cards than there are supercentenarians in the world, if each of them is acceptable...  ALKIVAR™ 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Possibly all supercentenarians are notable, and certainly those in Guinness are.--Runcorn 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Florence_Homan_6e70.html"