Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Madigan

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. As always, merging can be discussed on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Madigan

edit
Bernice Madigan (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)

I'm fixing the nomination for this page, as the previous version seemed to be a cut and paste from the talk page of her article. (You can see the discussion on this page here.) From what I can see, the argument seems to be whether or not being a supercentenarian is enough for notability. I have no personal opinion on this and I'm endorsing neither side, I'm just fixing the nomination so it will show up correctly in AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and leave history and protected redirect for now: Meets WP:SIGCOV but also qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT, so merge into an appropriate list-article. Since she has a good shot at eventually becoming the oldest American, there is no need to delete the article history. Un-protect when the two people ahead of her die OR she becomes notable for some other reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe that a fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines and policies underlie this article's consideration for deletion. It is mentioned that Madigan may not "require an article of her own," but there is no such thing as content that is required to exist other than that which specifies Wikipedia's core content policies, and any content may be created that adheres to existing policies and guidelines. In other words, there is no policy that states that editors must be parsimonious in the number of separate articles they create (indeed, the opposite is encouraged). Please read WP:DISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:IINFO for clarification. It is therefore likewise fallacious to assume that the potential existence of any other number of articles obviates existing content (e.g. an article for the oldest person in every state). This is backwards rationalization; again, there is no necessity to create articles (any policy-adherent content may be created), only guidelines and policies to which any article must adhere. I encourage everyone to read WP:N; "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. ... A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below. ... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Also, please read WP:! for further clarification. As I mentioned in the talk page, WP:1E is erroneously applied in this case; it refers to one event not one aspect or special quality of an individual's life. For example, "one event" might be a car chase for which an individual received media coverage. Supercentenarians are notable for being supercentenarians (i.e. 110 or more years old), and their coverage in reliable sources stems from this fact, not from any single event per se; The supercentenarians article and the related lists are not articles about a notable event. Inclusion in a stand-alone list is also irrelevant as there is no guideline implying that such inclusion obviates a stand-alone article. It's worth repeating that WP:1E would be equally misapplied to a Medal of Honor recipient, each of whom have their own stand-alone article (there are 3,000 such articles), or List of astronauts by name (there are 600 stand-alone articles). Also, please read WP:AFD very carefully. Thanks! Taurus (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results for "Bernice Madigan"- http://www.google.com/search?q=bernice madigan It is my opinion that this recently closed deletion discussion was reopened in error as there is no basis in policy or guidelines for deletion.Taurus (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A better Google web search would be "bernice madigan" -wiki -pedia -wikipedia -site:iberkshires.com which still gets over 1200 results. The question is, now many of these are "trivial," how many are "not independent" (one or more of the top-10 or top-20 is by a family member), and how many if any are truly examples of independent, significant coverage? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Interpretations of notability guidelines that would permit this article to remain stand alone would be so liberal as to put AfD out of business and turn Wikipedia into a more or less indescribable collection of knowledge. Applying the same interpretation as above I would be able to post an article on my favorite pizza parlor which has in fact been mentioned on a number of occasions in the press and media. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N, WP:1E, WP:!, WP:DISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia:IINFO, and WP:BLP very carefully. Thanks. Taurus (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I'd like to urge you to be impartial toward the subject of the article per se, and not trivialize this individual. Again, the issue at hand is not whether any editor thinks that an elderly woman is more fascinating or interesting than a Medal of Honor recipient, or astronaut, but whether or not this stand-alone article's existence violates policy such that it should be deleted or merged (rather than, say, improved). Please also read WP:AFD. Taurus (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding presumption of notability - "presumption of notability" is not the same as "notability." Taking the plain-English meaning, "presumption of" means "you can safely assume that... until evidence shows up to say otherwise." I'll use an example from WikiProject Schools: There once was a de facto presumption that high schools that confer a secondary diploma ("12th grade graduation") are notable. However, this presumption can be countered by evidence that a school is not notable - or more precisely, it can be countered by a diligent search for significant coverage independent of the source that comes up empty. Over time, the "presumption of notability" for high schools was refined and now it applies to "conventional"/"comprehensive" high schools but not to "special purpose" schools unless they offer similar "press-generating" things like sports teams that conventional high schools typically offer. This effectively excludes adult-ed high schools, alternative-discipline-assignment high schools, high schools in hospitals and other low-press-coverage settings, etc. from the "presumption of notability." Now, all of this may be irrelevant with respect to Ms. Madigan, as her notability will be based on 1) whether she meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or another criteria, and 2) whether there is a consensus that "merely getting a lot of press coverage just because you reached 110 years of age (or some other arbitrary cutoff)" does NOT qualify you for an article in spite of meeting existing notability requirements (see comment immediately below). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on people who on the face of things meet WP:GNG but who don't qualify for articles: Many sub-state-level politicians get significant coverage from reliable sources but by long time consensus they don't get an article if the only coverage is "local." I'm not sure what the equivalent "excluded from SIGCOV" would be for those who reach 110 years in age would be, but it's probably best discussed in a wikiproject, not here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A Google News search [1] showed that most or all coverage was local or possibly regional. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable [2] [3] as part of the Archon X Prize. She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [4], and received some international attention [5].--I am One of Many (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oldest living white person in the world, one of the 100 oldest women ever, oldest person born in Massachusetts...I don't understand why we can't have an article about her!--Dakota86x (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I made in the talk section of this article was that Susannah Mushatt Jones's article shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. "Not being the oldest American" is relevant only insofar as it relates to WP:N. Few of the people on the list of astronauts by name have landed on the moon, and many have in fact never even crossed into space, but each has an article. Regardless, it is difficult to imagine that the notability associated with being the fourth oldest living person among a population of over 7 billion does not justify an individual article here. Blacksun1942 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In WP:PEOPLE a notable person should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". I believe that being one of the top 10 oldest people among over 6 billion is interesting and unusual. The basic criteria for a notable person are "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Her notability is her age, which is validate in a reliable source:
A short interview comes from another reliable source:
And finally from:
I suspect that there are other reliable sources out there that are not on the Internet, but I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the criteria for notability have been satisfied in this case.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment i think being one of only 9 living people in the whole world born in the 1800's makes notability a no-brainer.--66.7.139.222 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernice_Madigan&oldid=1137611726"