Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Clawson (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 delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Clawson

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:BIO1E. Non-notable. Sources are GRG, an archived dead link (but the archive link is broken as well), a blocked article of the Chicago Tribune and another dead link. Includes POV trivia She remained mentally sharp until her very last day of life, enjoying talks with her family and friends. » Shadowowl | talk 16:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable for stand alone article, as per WP:BIO; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not about an event and so WP:BIO1E is irrelevant. The problem with access to sources like the Chicago Tribune is due to the GDPR which is irrelevant too. Coverage in such newspapers is adequate evidence to pass WP:GNG and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have the first keepist. She is only notable for 1 thing and should be only mentioned at a list of oldest people. Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only very sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her. There is no guideline that "the oldest x" is notable either. The article is also filled with typical longevity trivia (born, married, had kids, worked, and died) which is not needed. The encyclopedic information in this article, her age, life dates, and nationality is already recorded on various lists where it is easier to view, such as List of supercentenarians from the United States. On a side note, this article is pretty much in the same exact condition it was in when it was deleted the first time. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate list(s). The question, always, with these routine nothing-special bios of old people is how best to present them, even assuming they're notable. And someone like this is best presented in a list or lists. Most of the article is fluff (names of relatives, heartwarming story of birth certificate, etc.) and what little is left is easily and compactly summarized. E Eng 17:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Take out the original research about how someone was older but now isn't recognised and you're left with the bare basics of born, worked, moved to Canada then the US, had kids and then died. Easily handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of the type of coverage that would be sufficient to meet WP:N. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO1E, WP:GNG. Happy for a redirect to the appropriate list, but we should delete the history first. SportingFlyer talk 00:43, 28 September 2018 (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.