Talk:Gertrude Baines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Article assessment
I've assessed this as a stub class, as it is only a few sentences long and as low priority as she is unlikely to have been heard of outside of gerontology. Cheers, CP 20:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1894
Her page lists her birth year as 1894, but then says she is only 112...? This should be 113 surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.1.5 (talk • contribs)
- The film was from '2006', so she was 112 then. Duh. Ryoung122 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disrespectful
Making statements about whether this senior person reaches a certain date shows disrespect. Please understand the possibilible sensitivities involved. Even at my age (less than half of Gertrude) I would not like people to me making to (eg) next year or the like. It may be statistically interesting, but these are real people. As it will be superfluous in a matter of days I will not remove it - but I suggest it should be. Alan Davidson 02:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Canadian Paul - I agree with its removal. Well done. It was a factual statement (albeit a contingency) but should be removed. Alan Davidson 11:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Guinness - out of date
Should we list the fact that Guinness is out of date? She is now the 5th oldest; far from the 10th oldest. Wikipedia is a dynamic publication that is much more up to date.Alan Davidson 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we should. Extremely sexy 14:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. The article as written states that she is 'currently 5th-oldest' and was 'tenth-oldest' in the Guinness Book (which was as of March 3, 2007).Ryoung122 06:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's my point. Wikipedia is a dynamic updated publication, why quote an admittedly dated and incorrect source? (Incorrect in the sense that readers of Wikipedia expect currency). I suggest its deletion. At the least it should be in a footnote and not part of the body. Alan Davidson 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Alandavidson, the above comments are both disrespectful and benighted. Should we say the Nobel prize is out of date because it only gives out awards once a year (even if to 'living' members only?). If Doris Lessing passes away before the next awards, it doesn't mean you take back the prize.
Likewise, currency or no, the Guinness Book is the #1 best-selling book of all time (the Bible is usually given away free). There's something to be said for a 'tangible' book listing that you just don't get from newspaper article or Wiki-only.01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can't believe you are comparing the Guinness book of records to a Nobel prize or the Bible. It is a commercial product originated by a brewery to settle disputes in pubs. An entry in it does not equate to a Nobel prize. The point is this - the fact that Gertrude Baines is a supercenterian and is the fifth older living person in the world is significant. The fact that Guinness reports it, is not what makes it significant. Is there an unbiased view? Alan Davidson 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- You can't even spell 'supercentenarian.' Your commentary is unwarranted and incorrect. The point is...a once-a-year honor is more rare than a daily update. Is that too much to understand? No one says that the World Almanac is 'wrong' because it doesn't have events in it that ocurred AFTER publication. By that standard, every book every published is 'wrong.'
And, yes, as a matter of fact, your view is completely off. Like it or not, Guinness is the source that the world news media turns to arbitrate this sort of thing. The fact that Guinness reports Ms. Baines IS significant. And, again, if 'best-selling book of all time' means nothing to you, well it means something to MOST people. Since Wikipedia is here to build consensus, not win arguments, I don't see why you continue trying to push a rock uphill.Ryoung122 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not take this so personally. For Wikipedia it is important that Gertrude Baines has attained this; not that a publication (popular or otherwise) reports it. I am very happy to ask for a consensus. So far it is 2 to 1, which is not enough to do anything, yet. (Please desist from personal attacks). Alan Davidson 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
Of the many web pages from the 100 oldest persons, two seem to have been selected for deletion. Please explain. As for this page, she is the fifth oldest living person and one of the top 100 oldset living people in history. Alan Davidson 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is Ms. Baines age not being updated in the information box? It's at least 3 days old now that it as been blocked. This is beyond remiss and did not occur before all this squabbling by Alandavidson. CtTommyB 00 36, 14 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.242 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP, all unsourced material on biographies of living people can and must be removed on sight. Having an automated counter on her page presents her age to the day as a verifiable fact, which is of course impossible unless there happens to be a reliable, third-party source documenting that she is alive every time the clock hits 00:00 UTC. As has been seen, sometimes it takes a few days for the notices of death to come out, which means the counter presents a false fact as verifiable and true in these cases. It's a simple issue of verifiability. Every last detail and fact on this page should (ideally) be verifiable. Thus we can say that person X is alive until shown dead, because we can verify through many sources that they are alive until we can verify that they are dead. With exact ages, however, that is not the case. Cheers, CP 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have reinstated the {{notability}} tag on this article. WP:BIO requires substantive coverage in at least one reliable source, preferably more, not just a single 500-word blog entry. And nefore someone shours "but she is notable because she is old", that's now things work on wikipedia.
- Wikipedia is is a tertiary publication. In other words, we don't do research on primary sources (that's WP:NOR) and we cover those subjects which have already been found notable by others. So we don't make our own original assessment of notability, we follow what reliable sources have already found to be notable, and the test we use is whether the subject has been the subject of substantial coverage in those reliable sources, with multiple instances preferred. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A quick Google search finds several hundred hits. Many are blog type - but there are several dozen news articles - CNN, CBS, LA Sentinel and many local news outlets. Do these count? Alan Davidson (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can I repeat this question - this person has been in many articles; Google shows that - CNN, CBS, LA Senntinal. Do these count? Alan Davidson (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Calm down
The level of argument on many of these debates has gotten slightly out of hand, and far too personal. While some users have been obnoxious and pompous, their is no for many of the gerontologist-related users involved her to get so testy. I happen to concur. Gertrude Baines looks very interesting to me, her health and independance might be uncommon. She may make it to world's oldest person eventually. But regardless I would like to see a good, comprehensive, well written article on her. If not then this pathetic little stub should be deleted. I would write it up, but I don't have any information on her case, and no access to information, not to mention no time for research. Mr. Young and others, instead of constantly trying to protect articles from deletion and creating nasty little stubs that contain no information, why not start making comprehensive articles, one by one by one. Quality articles that are easier to defend. I'm tired, as someone interested in the lives and historical aspects of these peoples lives, of only finding stupid little stubs that contain no insight, you have no idea how aggravating it is. I would suggest you try to start writing articles, not stubs. I'm not trying to be rude here, for the most part I'm on your side, and I like gerontology, but still, quality has definitely gotten out of hand. But please, everyone, let's try to be plesant and proffesional, so many of these debates get nasty and personal, and both sides walk away from the computer angry. Build bridges, honey attracks more flies than vinigar, all that stuff. I'm not signed in right now, but its Robert Waalk here. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.254.222 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merged to list of American supercentenarians#Gertrude_Baines
Notability not established per WP:BIO, so I have merged this article to List of American supercentenarians#Gertrude_Baines. If anyone has references which could establish notability, I recommend adding them to List of American supercentenarians#Gertrude_Baines; if there are multiple non-trivial refers in reliable sources, the article could be considered for unmerger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Above I said:
A quick Google search finds several hundred hits. Many are blog type - but there are several dozen news articles - CNN, CBS, LA Sentinel and many local news outlets. Do these count? Alan Davidson (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I repeat this question - this person has been in many articles; Google shows that - CNN, CBS, LA Senntinal. Do these count? Alan Davidson (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do these not count? Alan Davidson (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Depends what sort of coverage they are. One-line mentions or reprints of wire stories don't do much to establish establish. If there are more substantial refs, why not cite them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Many are full stories. I suppose I will find some time to extract a few. Please give me a couple of days. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I only had a few minutes to look; Google gives more than 900 hits and on my perusal they all seem to be her - certainly the majority is her. His a few quick picks - is this what you meran?
CNN Health site – Dr Gupta – senior medial correspondent for CNN http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2006/12/supercentenarian-looks-back-over-112.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/19/cnr.03.html
LA Sentinal http://www.lasentinel.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=148
http://www.lasentinel.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=127
13 News Central Florida http://www.cfnews13.com/Health/YourHealth/2007/1/22/supercentarians.html
CBS2 http://cbs2.com/local/Birthday.Oldest.Citizen.2.522512.html
MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15156532/
Alan Davidson (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The CBS [1], LA Sentinel [2] and CNN [3] stories do appear to be independent and reasonably substantial. Suggest you update and expand the article to use the new material, and ensure that everything is properly referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not my article. I am merely pointing out the above re Gertude Baines. Alan Davidson (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
