Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith

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 - notability now established in article, concerns of referencing are now void, and there is the general idea that the article should be kept. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mamie Eva Keith

Mamie Eva Keith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Very old person, but article is unreferenced and therefore fails WP:BIO. A google search yields 120 hits, but no sign of any reliable sources as required by WP:BIO. An alternative search throws up only one teaser for an article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve If it fails WP:BIO because it is unreferenced, then I suppose it can be referenced. Neal (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
    • Reply As above, I have searched for references. Why keep it without reasonable expectation that it will be sufficiently sourced to pass WP:BIO? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Neal, please found your opinion in the article itself, not irrelevant nitpickery. Punkmorten (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, Punkmorten, if my opinion was about the article itself, then I would vote keep because I think being the oldest person in the world is notable. But since my topic was about lacking references, I could vote for deletion. And it seems it will be that way if references can't be found (as I haven't Googled her). Neal (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. An article shouldn't be deleted just because it's unreferenced. If there are no references to be found, however, then it's a prime candidate for deletion. Cheers, CP 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally I would say that being the oldest person in the world at a certain point is a good case for notability. But who knows. Punkmorten (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of American supercentenarians. She was indeed notable, however virtually no verifiable information is ever likely to be available to un-stubify a bio article. Belongs as a redirect to a paragraph or two as part of a reformatted list. --Storkk (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. As per user "NealIRC". Extremely sexy (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable for being oldest for period of time Mbisanz (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Per WP:BIO, notability requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which is not available in this case. The fact of her being oldest for a period of time is already listed in the article Oldest people, but a standalone article requires the substantial coverage which is lacking in this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - now referenced and expanded. Plainly notable. TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 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.