Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Swetland

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. CitiCat ^♫ 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gladys Swetland

Gladys Swetland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable biography. At no time was she ever more than the ninth-oldest living person in the world or the fourth-oldest person living in the United States. Also, WP:PSEUDO says that "In most cases, as noted above, a person who is only notable for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." I believe that this biography falls under that spectrum, as she is only known for her position among the world's oldest. Only two pages, Emma Tillman and Deaths in 2005 link here.

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice User Canadian Paul's nomination of this article may be in bad faith, in violation of WP:POINT [[1]]:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadian_Paul

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that 'not current' means 'easier to delete without others noticing'.

Ryoung122 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Defense Against Accusation I think you should be very careful about accusing people of bad faith, especially since I've noted multiple times on your very own talk page that I wanted to get rid of supercentenarian permastubs. First of all, "not current" was said by HSR NOT me. It doesn't mean that I wanted to sneak it under the radar, it just means Shitsu Nakano is sitting on the recent death pages with every Tom, Dick and Harry who edits Wikipedia. That means if I nominate someone like Swetland, the discussion can focus around people who actually contribute to longevity articles and have a better foundation on the topic. If I thought it would be "easier to delete without other noticing" why the hell would I have picked an article STARTED by Mr. Young, a gerontology expert who will likely fight tooth and nail to keep the article? People who create the articles have it added to their watchlist by default. If I was trying to be sneaky, I did a terrible job of it. I was NOT trying to just make a point by nominating Swetland, I had a true belief that the article did not meet notability guidelines, as laid out in the arguments on this page. Given the amount of work that I have done references and improving longevity articles that I DO find important for Wikipedia, I actually find this accusation quite insulting. Cheers, CP 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Given the amount of work I've done on Wikipedia, I find your accusatory tone insulting. Pot, meet kettle.74.237.28.5 05:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I also note that it is linked to from List of the oldest people, which, per WP:PSEUDO, should be satisfactory given her claim for notability. Cheers, CP 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Read WP: PSEUDO again. This is NOT a case where a person was mentioned in passing in an event (i.e. murder crime victim). This is a case where the woman WAS the story...and was covered several times over a 3-year period. Hence, your argument fails. Whether others consider her 'still not notable' or not, this particular line of reasoning is an incorrect application in this situation.Ryoung122 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I disagree, but I suppose there's nothing to do but bow to interpretation of the closing admin. Cheers, CP 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This article existed BEFORE the list article was created. Also, anyone perusing the list will want to know more about each case on it...is it true? What more can one find out?Ryoung122 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well in that case, now that the list exists, there should no longer be a reason for this page per WP:PSEUDO. Cheers, CP 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Hitting an arbitrary age does not automatically make one notable for WP purposes Corpx 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. How about we merge all these permastubs into lists of supercentenarians by country? If any of the articles we have currently are larger than a stub (like Henry Allingham or Jeanne Calment), we can keep the article and provide a summary with link to the main article. How does that sound? It's encyclopedic information, but these don't merit individual biographies.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The Gladys Swetland article is NOT a perma-stub. Check this one-liner out:

Anna Ringier. That looks more like a perma-stub to me. Note with all the articles referenced, this article 'can' be expanded. One reason I haven't is because I believe in the 'collective contribution' concept...let the article grow naturally as those who take interest in it add to it.Ryoung122 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep one of the top one hundred oldest people in the world ever. That is quite a feat. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Also a dynamic feat, meaning that in 10 years she may no longer be one of the hundred oldest people in the world ever. Even still, per WP:PSEUDO, unless a full biography can be written, the person doesn't deserve an article. In fact, if this article can be expanded to reasonable length and content, I will withdraw my request for deletion. (unsigned comment)

Comment As already discussed in 'surviving veterans of WWI', being a 'dynamic feat' is NOT a reason for exclusion right now. I note the World Almanac lists the tallest buildings in North American cities. The 1960's editions had a minimum cutoff point of 250 feet. In the 1970's, it was about 300 feet, and about 350 feet in the 1980's. Now it's at 400 feet. Thus, as the number of high-rises has exploded, being '350 feet tall' is no longer good enough for inclusion.

However, in regards to age, we find that much of the 'increase' has already occurred. In the early 1980's, being 109 or 110 was a rarity. Note that if Gladys had been her age in 1986, she would have been the world's oldest person. Ok, while the 'dynamic conveyor belt' is raising the age bar, it should be noted that the process is slowing down. We see only 4 of the top 100 people currently living. Given that Gladys is not at the bottom of the list, she should remain in the top 100 for at least several more years. I suggest if you are 'not happy' with this article, come back in 5-10 years from now. But age 113 years, 240 days is significant in its time...as noted, if she were alive right now she would be 4th-oldest in the world.Ryoung122 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First off, we have lots of people creating articles for mere 110 and 111-year-olds (such as Florence Reeves). This woman was older than Shitsu Nakano whose death warranted mention on the Wikipedia deaths list.Ryoung122 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment First off, Other crap exists is not a valid argument. Secondly, many entries on recent deaths are removed if their articles do not past AfD (think Stack Bundles or whatever that rapper's name was). Thirdly, if this AfD passes, I plan on nominating many of those other articles on the same premise.

• Comment. Other crap exists is an inconsistent 'policy' and I have no respect for it; it actually weakens Wikipedia.

In this case, this woman ranked among the top-10 living persons and top-100 all-time. That alone should be enough to keep.Ryoung122 14:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

CommentIt would only be enough to keep if it could be if a substantial biography could be written about her. My offer still stands; if someone brings this article up to an acceptable level, I will withdraw the nomination. The time you spend arguing could be used to take the easy way out - improve the article to a full biography. If it can't be done, then all she needs is a mention on the top-100 of all time and maybe a reformatting of the table to include blurbs for those who do not merit their own articles. Cheers, CP 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment No one appointed you official arbiter of bio-worthiness. Even making an 'offer' is not ethical. An article shouldn't be 'saved' for making a deal; neither should it be deleted for 'not' making one. Also, Stack Bundles or no, Wikipedia is 'not paper' and an individual article can offer more than a simple list (and unlike Stack, reaching 9th-oldest in the world is a uniqueness factor of about 1 in 700 million...I'm sure there's far more articles on rappers and high school football players than the world's oldest people). Given the fact that these cases are cited for their age being verifiable and documentable, it makes sense that for future generations, we produce referenced material so double-checking can occur. Also of note, if the media chose to cover someone BEFORE their death (and over a year-plus period) and if the articles extend beyond a local to a national focus (i.e. seniorjournal.com) then that is a reason to keep.Ryoung122 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Opinion.

So Wikipedia has an article for the top 10 living and a list of top 100 ever. And what happens when they die? The top 10 living list is changed, leaving them delinked from the oldest people page. I think it comes down to voting whether being a minimum of the 10th oldest person in the world is substantial to have an article. If yes, then this article, yes. If no, then all other deceased 10th oldest person in the world, goes bye-bye, unless they have some other notable fame, but then you have to draw the line of the minimum rank at death. Ever deceased oldest person in the world has an article and I strongly support that. Such a vote likely shouldn't be in this article, but something for Wikipedia admins to decide.

Here's what I nominate, my opinions are as follows:

Strong views:

By rank: The oldest person in the world, whether deceased, should have an article.
By geography: The oldest person by country, whether not 10th oldest, should have an article.

Not so strong views:

By rank: Down to the 5th oldest person in the world.
By geography: Down to the oldest person in a state, province, etc., of a country.

Weak views:

By rank: Down to the 10th oldest person in the world.
By geography: Down to the oldest person in a city..

The above can be split also by gender, so the oldest man in a country, could be 10th oldest in country, and 100th oldest in world.. Anyone else? Neal 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I simply can't see how you could compare a top-1O in the world to the 'oldest in a city.' Last I checked, we have a list of all the cities in America with 100,000 or more people (top 250 or so). Thus, 'oldest in a city' is NOT significant. However, one of the 'ten oldest in the world' IS significant---unless there are no facts about a person other than their dates of birth, death, and nationality...which is why I supported the deletion of Tsuneyo Toyonaga the first time around (the article was later re-created and Toyonaga went on to become Japan's oldest person, and a few additional details about her emerged). The 'top-10' ranking system is a way to include 'otherwise notable' persons who might be overlooked simply due to 'bad luck.' For example, Clementine Solignac is just the second-oldest person in France but she is older than the oldest person in nearly every other country (i.e. the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, etc).Ryoung122 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, when I said city, I didn't mean town or village, despite you using a legal/official definition. I guess I forgot to mention the population requirement size, etc. Neal 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

(Continued)

Okay I added a "longevity" section in WP:BIO. I put "was the oldest person in the world" as they already have their articles. And I added an entry in the discussion page. Please go there to vote for a landmark decision. We can come back here if a decision is reached. Neal 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we should disregard the above statement. First off, it is a bit crass to 'insert' a special 'longevity' category when the only three categories listed are quite huge (i.e. politicians, entertainers, etc). Two, while this topic certainly could be discussed, we first have to discuss what 'criteria' to vote on...not simply have ONE person write two sentences and have everyone vote, and then play 'dictator' and go on a deletion rampage. I note that 19-year-olds and 21-year-olds often lack the comprehensive maturity that comes with age. Wikipedia is already biased toward youth; we shouldn't make it worse. I note in the 'surviving veterans of WWI' discussion, several formats were proposed and extensively debated BEFORE something went to a vote. Does a jury decide a trial before hearing the evidence?Ryoung122 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Hence why I called it "opinion." Neal 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

• Keep Being the ninth oldest living person in the world isn't really an event as much as it is an achievement. If she had only gotten stories due to her death, that could be an event, but she was interviewed during her life. We certainly do and should have articles on the oldest, the tallest, the shortest, etcetera people in the world. I added half a dozen references to the article, between them she meets the primary criterion of Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since it appears this article nomination is less about Gladys Swetland and more about a whole category of articles, I suggest we focus on the 'point'. The 'point' that some are trying to make is that unless you are Einstein or Galileo, you shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. I note a few rebuttals:

1. WP: BIO is a 'guideline', not a rule. Ultimately, 'consensus' of the Wiki community determines notability.

2.Criteria for notability of people A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Assessment of notability should not be a technical decision. Instead, it's like trying to choose which baseball players belong in the 'Hall of Fame'. Certain minimum standards are considered 'automatic' inclusion (barring scandal): 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs.

In addition, other players who do not meet these standards but nonetheless demonstrated 'peak' talent (such as Sandy Koufax) are also voted in.

I note that standards 'do' change over time. Bruce Sutter was, in my opinion, dubiously elected based on a mere 300 saves, a standard which is less impressive now that Trevor Hoffman has over 500.

However, this is not (yet) the case with this article. If we check the List of living supercentenarians we find that, were Gladys alive today, she would rank fourth-oldest in the world (instead of ninth). At the time of Glady's death, several unusually long-lived persons were alive at the same time. Hence, standards are 'fuzzy', not concrete; a ranking alone should only be one variable. Other variables to consider include actual age and news coverage. If a person remained anonymous and was only known through a statistical records search and their age was not a recordbreaker, then perhaps they should not be included. This is not the case here.

Also, I disagree that the 'oldest person in a country' should automatically be included. Some nations are micro-states; others have huge populations. Being the oldest person in France means a lot more than being the oldest person in Monaco. Even in Belgium, the current oldest person is a mere 108 years old. Although first in the nation, I don't think Marcelle Droogmans yet warrants an article. If she is alive three years from now, her case may be on the cusp.

In the big picture of things,

Therefore, I propose the following general policy guidelines, not rules:

--the person's age should be accepted as validated by an established authority (i.e. Guinness, GRG, IDL) (and not a newspaper or nationalist source) and should be at least 110 years old (supercentenarian status). This would exclude the 'oldest living person' for places like Norway or Belgium in an 'off' year (i.e. age 107 or 108 isn't enough to establish worldwide notability). Exceptions could be made, however, to early historical age cases.

For those that meet the first condition (age 110), I note the raw numbers I have (for data through March 25, 2007):

• age 117 and above:5
• age 116 and above:10
• age 115 and above:23
• age 114 and above:63
• age 113 and above:132
• age 112 and above: 278
• age 111 and above (subset of below): 550
• age 110 and above: 1054

Before I go further, I might ask: how much coverage is too much? True, just about every major league baseball player ever counts as a 'notable' biography to some. However, this might be a case where I agree with the 'other crap exists' argument. The fact is, for better or worse our society as a whole values sports figures far more than elderly icons. Perhaps 'supercentenarians' are better to compare to a lesser-known sport (perhaps tennis). We know the top-10 players, maybe top 20 but that's about it.

Basically, we can say that age 110 'alone' is not enough to establish notability. However, a line at age '114' (just 63) is too small (not even a top-100). Therefore, I propose that anyone who has reached the verified age of 113 should be considered notable and warrant an article, UNLESS that person's age came only from official statistics and their identity remained anonymous to the public (i.e. Adelheid Kirschbaum) and they did not attain a first-position rank (i.e. Matthew Beard). Dropping these cases would reduce our tally from '132' to perhaps 100.

However, if we set the bar that high, it would exclude many cases that received extensive media coverage (such as Antonio Todde). Germany's national record is under 113. Sweden's national record is more than a year below Ms. Swetland's age (113 years 240 days vs. 112 years 150 days). Also, since only 10% of supercentenarians tend to be male, we could perhaps lower the bar to age '111' for males.

Also, I don't like to make 'strong delineations' based on numbers alone. I feel that age "113" should be automatic inclusion. However, we see that often there aren't even ten living 113-year-olds in the entire world (currently we have seven). Thus I would prefer an age-merit cutoff of about 112.5 years. Why? This is halfway between age 110 (lots of cases) and 115 (extremely rare). Age '112.5' or 112 years 180 days would be enough to assure that anyone in the 'top 10' would be included.

Ok, but what about persons such as Irmgard von Stephani? She is just 111 currently, but Germany's oldest person, and a strong personality with lots of media coverage. Germany (with 80+ million people) is an important nation. Thus, I suggest being the oldest person in nations with 50 million or more persons (and remember, since cases must be validated, this basically means the USA, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, and Italy). But then what about Spain? Australia? Is Portugal enough? Is Switzerland too small? Where do we draw the line? Why do we have an article on Anna Ringier...Switzerland's oldest person?

To me, there are simply too many intuitive calculations to simply make arbitrary checklists. However, to review, a general guideline for inclusion:

--the case must be validated by a reputable, independent authority --the person's age --the person's national ranking status --the person's world ranking status --whether the person received significant media attention outside their local area

In summation, I consider age 112.5+ to be a 'definite' for an article, unless there simply is no material available. For those aged 110-112.49, I suggest inclusion of those that were the 'oldest living man'; the oldest person in a major nation; and those that were vaguely famous for something other than age.

Always keep

• World's oldest person titleholders
• World's oldest man titleholders
• Persons 113 and over whose life garnered significant national media coverage
• Those in the 'top 100' all-time (and if they drop out, nominate them for deletion to see what the consensus is then)
• Those who attained a top-5 world ranking

May Keep

• Oldest person in a major nation
• Anyone 112.50 to 112.99 whose life garnered significant national media coverage
• Those notable for other reasons (i.e. WWI veteran, painter, etc).
• Those who attained a 6-10 world ranking

Might or Might Not Keep

• Those aged 112.00 to 112.49
• Oldest in a U.S. state (major states yes; minor state no)
• Those who attained an 11-25 world ranking
• males aged 111

Might not Keep

• Females aged 110 and 111 not known for something else (i.e. 'Canada's oldest person)
• Those not national recordholders and not known for something else (i.e. Ida Fraboni-Saletta is *Italy's second-oldest person and aged 110)
• Those for whom no biographical material is available (i.e. Yasu Nishiyama other than what would appear in a list or chart
• Those whose top ranking is less than the top-25 (my GRG list gives the ranking for EVERY supercentenarian at death)

So, with Gladys Swetland, we have a top-10 living, top-100 all-time, aged 113+ with significant media coverage. Hence, I say keep...and I've suggested where the bar should be set for other cases.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Brandon97 21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I read the points from both sides and I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this article. Wikipedia is a tremendous resource and public discussion forum. There are articles concerning topics, events and individuals on Wikipedia of which I am not particularly interested, but it doesn't mean someone else isn't. My philosophy is that the more information we have available to the public concerning our slice of time, the better picture future generations have of our culture. Gladys Sweatland may not have been the "World's Oldest Person" at the time of her death, but she was important in many ways. To have lived on her own until age 110 is extremely rare and few even "world's Oldest" have ever achieved this. She is also clearly an example for all humanity that a person well past 100 can have a happy active life. How many people do you know are still enjoying their lifelong activities at age 113? Many of the "supercentenarians" are bedridden, blind or deaf or a combination of these so she was significant even among this group of people. We, at times, look upon the Middle Ages and Dark Ages with a sense of gloom and doom. Wars, famine, plagues, short life spans are all hallmarks of those eras. Yet it is in the personal stories that we are given more of a clear picture of the era itself and the day to day life of the people. Why delete the stories of all these people in our time just because they weren't the oldest? It's not logical. For those with an interest in Gerontology research alone, Mrs. Sweatland is remarkable. For those of us who have a sense of "Knowledge is Power" keep her article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakfpk knight (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 August 2007
• Keep per Ryoung122. 113 is notable. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong keep as per Ryoung122 and AMK152. Extremely sexy 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted-Mania??? Statistician 20:53, 26. August 2007 (CET) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC).
• Keep as she is notable by being among the 100 known oldest from among about 10? billion people that have ever lived? But if this debate results in firmer criteria, that is a good thing.--Rye1967 00:29, 27 August 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.