Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelina Domingues

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 Delete. BLACKKITE 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adelina Domingues

Adelina Domingues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Yet another unreferenced stub on a very old person; fails WP:BIO (no substantive coverage). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Was old. Is now dead. Greswik (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I didn't think death has much to do with reverse notability. Neal (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep In the top 100. Rare being from Cape Verde. Immigrated. Notable. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? After searching hard I found about 5 sources in print, whic I added to the article. So let's close this Afd since apparently verifiability is the issue. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • From what I can see, the references are all trivial. I'm also curious about the way they are bunched together rather than referencing particular points. Have you actually seen any of these references, or is this a list which someone else sent you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Per what by Richard Norton Kitia? - Galloglass 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As per his recent edits at the recent old people discussions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitia (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply. OK, let's look at the these references:
  1. O. Tracy, 1958: a mention in a letter which covers 2 pages in a book. Trivial.
  2. E. Mosteller, 1958: cited in support of the paragraph "She lived on her own until she was 107. Outliving her own children, she would eventually succeed another immigrant, fellow 114-year-old Grace Clawson (who was born in England), as the oldest documented person in the U.S. when the latter died in May 2002." This is transparent nonsense: a book published in 1958 could not know what happened 40 years later, and it is at best ridiculous to cite it as a ref for that para.
  3. Vivian Sloan, letter from Lemon Grove, California. Primary source, does not establish notability (even if we knew what its contents were). Also, Kitia, please can you explain how you come to cite this letter. What is it about? Where is it published? Have you even seen its contents?
  4. "Nazarene Woman, 115, May Be World's Oldest Person," Holiness Today, magazine of the Church of the Nazarene. That's the in-house magazine of her own order, and as such is not independent of the subject, so does not establish notability
  5. Adelina Domingues, Oldest American, Dies at 114 A 239 word obit reprinted from the LA Times. 239 words is not substantial coverage
  6. Adelina Domingues, Oldest American, 114 431 AP wirestory obit quoted on a third-party website from CNN.
So far as I can see, some of these refs (#2 and #4) do not belong here at all, #1 and #3 are irrelevant to notability, so a claim to notability rests solely on the two obituaries. If they are actually independent, then she might just squeeze through WP:BIO, but the LA Times story looks to me like it might be an earlier version of the AP wirestory. No author is listed for the LA Times story, but if it can be established that the LA Times report is indeed intellectually independent of the AP wirestory, then I would accept this as a case of borderline notability which should be merged to List of American supercentenarians.
However, I remain very concerned about the provenance of the other references. Kitia, please do explain how you come to cite those other references, because while I want to assue good faith, there is something very odd about them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
How? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If she had been the oldest person ever then she may have been notable, but she wasn't. So she's just another old lady. And old ladies do not currently meet WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. Kitia I really recommend reading WP:BIO for future reference. - Galloglass 14:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that being older than Edna Parker is not a policy, but I am using it as one because we do not have one on supercentenarian articles. We need to create ones because this is really becominga problem. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not with the guidelines, but with the fact that some editors have been busy creating numerous stub articles about very old people, which either have little to say or which appear to involve a lot of original research. Please do read WP:NOTE and WP:BIO to learn more about the concept of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Have to agree with Galloglass, was not even certified as the oldest person living.--Aldux (talk) 20:56, 10 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.