Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tillman (2nd nomination)

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. Sentiment in the discussion after the second relist clearly turned to Keep, and was supported with specific reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tillman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Time for another AfD on this one, now that the topic isn't so beset with SPAs. A lot of this is irrelevant filler material (one of her customers being Katherine Hepburn's father is up there), and once stripped of this we learn she was born, she worked, she got old, she was the world's oldest person for 5 days, she died, and one professor once talked about her in one lecture that was peripherally related to her. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, all the relevant information can be at the list of American supercentenarians; wouldn't be opppsed to a minibio, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m gonna have to disagree. While a lot of these headlines are about her being the oldest person in the world for a while (at some point it’s gotta be somebody), reliable sources e.g. NYT validate facts about her from childhood all the way throughout her life. That can’t be denied. She also holds the world record according to Guinness for being the oldest person for the shortest amount of time. A record’s a record. And the coverage spanned across 10 years. Trillfendi (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And all of that is utterly mundane, routine minutiae. Growing up, going to church for a long time and operating a business are not in any way remarkable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s not about we like; there are thousands of uninteresting people on this website. She could’ve been famous for making macaroni and cheese as far as I’m concerned. The notability policy says verifiable evidence is required and that the coverage is sustained. The previous AfD of this showed several examples of articles on her from the 2000s, and they weren’t blurbs. Trillfendi (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the reasons given in the first AFD (which I just read for the first time). She had non-trivial coverage over a sustained period of time, and therefore satisfies the criteria at WP:GNG. I see nothing new being offered by the nominator from the last AFD nomination, and it's likely this AFD will come to the same conclusion it did last time.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-trivial? She lived and died, that's all the sources say. Living and dying are not notable just for having an unusual length of time in between events, and the AfD 4 years ago was so infested with SPAs that any conclusions from it are meaningless; longevity articles have had a huge problem with fanboys canvassing off-wiki, which clearly happened in that case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you have accurately summarized the content of the article, conveniently leaving out her achievement of being the oldest person alive on the planet earth, if only for four days. Such records are of interest to humanity, which is why the news covers them, and why such coverage meets the criteria for inclusion at WP:GNG. As stated in the last AFD, the media coverage is substantial enough in this case to support keeping this article. I suggest you come to terms with wikipedia's policies as they are and stop trying to fight windmills.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage. You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. No, a bunch of canvassed fanboys shrieking ITSNOTABLE!!!! doesn't make it so. Breathing for a long time is not notable, as has been established at many recent AfDs (many are listed here), I think I might just actually know what I'm talking about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's absolutely nothing in this article that cannot be handled in the lists of longest living people. There's no policy-based reason that this subject needs a stand-alone article. Please review WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is tending towards No Consensus, but I'd like to relist it for one more week. There was a lot of participation in the first AfD, surely there are more than four people who have an opinion on this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The extent of her notability is that she was the oldest person whose birth certificate had been examined for 4 days. Except for an article on her 4 years before she died, that is the extent of the sourcing of this article. That sounds like WP:BLP1E, even though she is dead and thus BLP no longer applies. The article 4 years early is WP:MILL. Rockphed (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While one of the two keep !voters has been given that it meets GNG not just being verifiable there is consensus among the three !voters that it does not. Attempting one final relist to see if a firmer consensus about this either way may be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has an obituary in the New York Times and that's clear evidence of notability. The nomination is a plain violation of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly aware that this topic in 2015 was flooded with SPAs. Now that it isn't, a renomination 4 years later is hardly disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources, so there is now significant coverage from 1990, 1993, 1997, 2006 and 2007. Much of it is in her local paper, the Hartford Courant, with an article in another Connecticut paper, the Journal Inquirer. However, in 2006 there is also a long article in the Salvation Army journal Priority!, and there are long obituaries in the New York Times (republished internationally) and Boston Globe, with shorter ones in other media. That is certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. While the nominator may think that "Breathing for a long time is not notable", clearly newspapers like the New York Times and Boston Globe think that it is notable enough for them to give it significant coverage, and that is what WP:GNG is based on, not how long a subject breathes for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-covered and meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject's death received significant coverage in The New York Times (link), Los Angeles Times (link), the New York Daily News (link) the BBC (link), and the The Sydney Morning Herald (link). Prior to her death, she received sustained significant coverage in the Hartford Courant (1990 article, 1993 article 1997 article, 1998 article, 2000 article, 2002 article, and 2007 article). There are even more sources as posted here by Fiskje88 (talk · contribs) such as a 2002 article in the The Bulletin and a 2005 article in the Journal Inquirer.
The sustained significant coverage about Emma Tillman means that she clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important question. What is a SPA? Hard to understand the arguments for/against if you don’t understand the lingo.

Single Purpose Account. Often a mark of an editor who has a particular POV (point of view) and/or one who is not really here to build an encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2019 (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.