Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Booyson

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 soft redirect to National longevity recordholders. Okay, we've got sources that indicate that Ms. Booyson is an appropriate entry in lists such as the above. What we don't have is any such sources that provide biographical details of the type in the article. Therefore, I'll create a soft redirect--that is, redirect to the list, but leave the current history in place--in order to allow additional research to be performed to properly attribute the biographical details. If such sources are found, the article can be re-established and re-evaluated. — Scientizzle 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johanna Booyson

Johanna Booyson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another very old person, with only trivial list-style references. My google search threw up nothing in any reliable sources, let alone anything substantive to meet WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are any number of people who were once the oldest in the world who have articles here. They are notable people. Qworty (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to pass the notability test.Osli73 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. Some of them are notable; others such, as this one, are quite sufficiently covered in lists such as Oldest people (which includes Booyson), because is there nothing to say about her which is not already in the lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Keep Qworty, they're notable factoids if they don't have a biography and such. Neal (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
        • If there is no biographical information to be had on the person, the person does not warrant a biographical article in the encyclopedia. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. National longevity recordholders shows that the longevity record holder of a country is considered notable. The ghits spit out a whole bunch of sources. Taking all of them in the aggregate, I think that she is sourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply The test in WP:BIO is substantive coverage in reliable sources. Counting ghits is no substitute for the lack of proper sources; no amount of entries in blogs or wikipedia mirrors alters the fact that there is so little available in reliable sources that there is almost nothing to say about her. Most of the article is unsourced, and if trimmed back to what's available in reliable sources, it would amount to only one line. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

*Keep. Obviously! Hey, BrownHairedGirl, go back to being a robot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwyoubitch (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC) — Screwyoubitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • This user's been blocked, do we indent and strike? J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. For a reliable source for her being a supercentenarian, try this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't dispute that she is a supercentenarian, but the ref you provide offers no substantial coverage: it's a list entry. Please see WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete She may be the oldest in her country, but otherwise she fails WP:RS and WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to National longevity recordholders. I think the article is better off as an entry there--Lenticel (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd just like to reiterate what I said above: it's not fair to use the Internet to determine this woman's notability, since she died in 1968. It's easy to prove Edna Parker's notability, since she is an Internet-era supercentarian, but it might require some actual library research to properly judge earlier record-holders. Zagalejo^^^ 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • So do yourself a Google Books search, and discover, as I did, that this person accrues exactly one line in one book — the Guinness Book of World Records 1981. As pointed out, there is no source material from which to construct a biographical article. This person is one line in a list outside of Wikipedia, so should be one line in a list inside Wikipedia. Wikipedia should reflect what the sources do. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Google Books isn't comprehensive, though. And Google News Archives only offers a fraction of what actually exists in print. Zagalejo^^^ 10:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • If at some later date someone finds substantive coverage in the print archives of newspapers in the Transvaal, and if that adds up to more than a lone obituary, an article can be written. In the meantime, all we have is a factoid which belongs in a list. Meanwhile, this substub article offers nothing beyond what's already covered in National longevity recordholders and oldest people, so there is no need to split it out from the lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Fine. I just wanted to correct the assumption that all information about her would be available on the Internet. Zagalejo^^^ 10:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per User:Lenticel above. I suspect that we're going to find it very difficult to verify a lot of the claims in this bio, apart from her age. If more print sources are found that will allow the construction of a more substantial article, then we can approach that at a later date. Lankiveil (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep The Guinness Book of Records, an acceptable source no doubt, tells us she was at one time the oldest person in the world. As notability does not expire on Wikipedia, this means she's notable enough for an article. She is still the oldest ever South African. Nick mallory (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as she was (however briefly) the oldest living person in the world, I'd think this one passes the bar of notability. - fchd (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The two references are just directory listings and lack substantial coverage, which is necessary to show notability. Edison (talk) 17:29, 12 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.