Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sum Ying Fung

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sum Ying Fung

Sum Ying Fung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. The world's oldest individual by nation hasn't been considered sufficient notable before. The only sources here are WP:ROUTINE obituaries you would find. The problem is that the article alleges (without sources) that those WP:RS are inaccurate without evidence of that allegation. Either, her claim can be debunked by a reliable source and thus the sources here aren't reliable as to these facts and she isn't notable or her claim is valid based on these reliable sources but the only sources here are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Controversial I expect but I removed the hints that her claim isn't valid. As noted, there are only the three reliable sources provided that assert her birthdate of 1899 and absent a reliable source debunking it, it should be treated as a WP:FRINGE theory that she actually wasn't born in 1899. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Gender bias is real and is a problem. 166.171.123.191 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. There are no policy-based arguments to be made that either the age is, per se notable, nor that this person, who lacks WP:SIGCOV has met the requirements of WP:GNG. Even if they had, WP:NOPAGE counsels that, rather than a stand-alone article, inclusion in a list might be appropriate. Gender bias, raised above, is not a factor here. David in DC (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Not dying for one century doesn't actually make you notable, it just makes you really old.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:PERMASTUB, WP:NOPAGE. "At the claimed age" -- don't we know??? EEng (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Mrs Fung received some coverage when she became the oldest living person in Canada - detailed biography; short coverage. When she died 11 months later, there was a lot of coverage too. In particular, this detailed biography in Chinese compelled me to think we should have an article on her. Deryck C. 13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered the NOPAGE and PERMASTUB arguments. Your recent edits have added nothing but pedestrian life details to the article (other than the Chinese Exclusion Act bit, which could easily be accommodated in a list minibio.) EEng (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we simply disagree on the applicability of PERMASTUB and NOPAGE. My argument is that there is already enough notableDeryck C. 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC) biographical content in existing reliable sources that will be too much to fit into a listbio. Personally, I'd consider her being smuggled out of Beijing in 1989 at the age of 90 to be more significant than the Chinese Exclusion Act, but that isn't the point. In a sense, all biographies are "pedestrian life details". It is the extent of biographical coverage in reliable sources, not some arbitrary criterion for "importance", that determines notability. Deryck C. 15:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing notability (which is one question) and article content. Notability is not the test for article content, so "notable biographical content" makes no sense. "Barred from the US in 18xx because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, she was later smuggled into the US by..." would fit nicely in a minibio or list, and the rest is unimportant. EEng (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the separation between notability and content. I apologise for the redundancy. My argument still stands though - whether a subject should be covered on Wikipedia, and whether the subject deserves its own article, both depend on the concept of notability, which in turn depends on the the availability of reliable sources. Importance doesn't come into the question directly. I think your one-line summary biography misunderstood Fung's life story. They are completely separate life events which will be better off as two parts in her own article than a listbio. Deryck C. 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you still misunderstand notability vs. article content: WP:NNC. EEng (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:Charles Matthews and User:Keilana for their expertise on overseas Chinese and women's biographies. Deryck C. 09:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Tumbr page (even for The Vancouver Sun) is going to be a reliable source but you should probably refer to the article instead which is actually the same (Canada.com is taking its story from the Sun) so it's actually a single source. Nevertheless, the sources doesn't really provide any new information about her other than the same basic details. Perhaps this should be made into a redirect and a small biography at List of Canadian supercentenarians but we still have the issue of whether her claim should be included in the tables there (I don't see why not). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Because she's not verified. It's unscientific to put an unverified SC in with verified ones. There's a reason she wasn't there. And in the case of 115+ claimants, under no circumstances should you put them in with verified ones. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 158.222.69.9 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete absent sources with further content. Plenty of human interest, nothing here encyclopedic that I can see. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep rock solid coverage before death and in obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the NOPAGE and PERMASTUB arguments? EEng (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just add more info from the biographies and obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

But the point isn't to add any jumble of facts to just swell the article; can you suggest what might be added that our readers would want to know? EEng (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep A rather clear and undeniable claim of notability, backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources that provide the significant coverage needed about the subject to provide an appropriately substantial article. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline with coverage in The Province, CBC.ca, 加拿大家园, and The Vancouver Sun. Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)'s arguments against WP:NOPAGE are convincing. I strongly agree with his eloquent comment that:

  In a sense, all biographies are "pedestrian life details". It is the extent of biographical coverage in reliable sources, not some arbitrary criterion for "importance", that determines notability.

  Cunard (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2015 (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.