Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Hagel
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 Merge with a soft redirect as I did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Booyson. — Scientizzle 16:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Catherine Hagel
Single-source article on a very old person. The 800-word article in her local newspaper does cover her life quite well, but is one write-up in the local paper really enough to establish notability per WP:BIO? I suggest a merger to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep or redirect. Under most circumstances, I'd agree this article should be deleted, however I wonder if WP:IDONTKNOWIT can come into effect here, as WP:LOCALFAME clearly does not. Usually, a supercentarian is deleted as a sole holder of non-notability, however, in this case there are actually 2 holders of notability, in Catherine Hagel and her sister Delvina Dahlheimer. Her deceased sister was the oldest in Minnesota. Catherine now the 8th in the world, 5th in the United States, and 1st in Minnesota after beating her sisters' record. I would actually be okay with a double-Redirect to a secondary article such as The Dahlheimer Sisters where their notability as supercentarians is put together and perhaps expanded from there. --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with that idea is that there are no references for either Hagel or Dahlheimer which even establish that they are sisters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.127.188 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Living to the age of 113 is remarkable enough alone, but to having a sister-in-law who did the same in the same area must be so rare that the article with no doupt should be allowed to stand. (The article does not say that they are sisters - read it again!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.127.188 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, the claim is that they are sisters-in-law rather than sisters. But my point stands: where is the evidence that they were in any way related? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Living to the age of 113 is remarkable enough alone, but to having a sister-in-law who did the same in the same area must be so rare that the article with no doupt should be allowed to stand. (The article does not say that they are sisters - read it again!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.127.188 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As the sister-in-law article Delvina Dahlheimer article also passed AfD [citation needed]. Neal (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
- I have no idea how the closing admin reached the conclusion he did, and have asked for an explanation. I would strongly object to taking the Dahlheimer AfD as a precedent, particularly when no-one has produced any evidence that the two were actually sisters-in-law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Follow-up: the closing admin changed his mind and agreed that merger to List of American supercentenarians was preferable. See discussion on my talk and closing admin's note on the AfD talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm okay, I could take a look into that. On whether the 2 were sisters-in-law. Neal (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
- I have no idea how the closing admin reached the conclusion he did, and have asked for an explanation. I would strongly object to taking the Dahlheimer AfD as a precedent, particularly when no-one has produced any evidence that the two were actually sisters-in-law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Or merge with relative Mbisanz (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2007 (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.
