Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva McConnell - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eva McConnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A declined speedy by NickOrnstein read, "There is no reason to create an article on her now. It would make more sense if she were a supercentenarian and/or if she was the oldest living resident in her country. An article on Wikipedia is being used as a source, which is against the rules." Nick also said here, "Eva McConnell is not the oldest after Australia's formation, which was on January 1, 1901. Mary Rothstein born February 27, 1901 is the oldest (known) and oldest born after." I add that Nick has access to sources like the Gerontology Research Group to back up this statement, which combined with not yet being a supercentenarian pretty much gives the lie to notability. There's also that circular sourcing going on. JJB 04:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete Being fourth oldest person in her country does not provide inherent notability. Edison (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere are three people older than her living in Austrailia, and the oldest person living there, a supercentenarian, doesnt have an article, so it seems odd for her to have an article when the oldest person living there, a supercentenarian, doesnt. Longevitydude (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isnt a reason to keep or delete Gnangarra 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Federation/Independence/formation of Australia as a single body is a significant point in time Eva McConnell is the oldest person born in Australia since federation, that makes her notable in the Australian context, even if others are older they where born elsewhere or before Federation. Gnangarra 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But "oldest documented living person born in Country X after federation and still there" has no significant coverage in secondary sources, and is a one-event fact about her life, and may not even qualify to make her notable enough to be included in a list article. JJB 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Agree with John J above.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We edit (and delete) on a case-by-case basis. However, there do seem to be a whole passel of articles for people who are old, but have no other notability. If you specialize in studying old people, I guess these subjects may seem notable. But they don't fall within wikipedia's definition of notability. I'm reminded of the assessment of the Mel Brooks character's notability in To Be or Not to Be. He's a Polish vaudevillian described as "World-famous, in Poland."David in DC (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that being the 4th oldest person is not significant enough. The point is that she is the older person born in Australia - that is since Australia'a birth. (The oldest person in Australia was born in a colony.) Alan Davidson (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.