Deletion of Ivy Bean

Comment: I really wanted to !vote "delete" here, but after looking at the sources, I have to go with keep. Regarding the arguments that she has not really done anything of note - well, I learned quite a while ago not to pass judgement on what other people consider notable. As long as there is considerable coverage by mainstream respectable news-outlets, the subject is notable. We should not substitute our value judgement for that of the sources. In this case we have plenty of mainstream coverage (BBC, NPR, etc). Regarding  argument - that argument would apply if we were dealing with one brief spike of coverage lasting a few days or a few weeks. In this case, significant coverage spreads over the period of several years, from 2008 (e.g. herehttp://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Technology/Ivy-Bean-The-UKs-Oldest-Facebook-And-Twitter-User-Celebrates-104th-Birthday-In-Bradford/Article/200909215376997?lpos=Technology_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15376997_Ivy_Bean%2C_The_UKs_Oldest_Facebook_And_Twitter_User%2C_Celebrates_104th_Birthday_In_Bradfordhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93619406http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/15/2008-08-15_102yearold_grandma_is_oldest_person_on_f.html ) to 2009 (e.g.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Heads-and-Tales/103-yr-old-woman-is-oldest-Twitter-user/articleshow/4536225.cmshttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2550020/Oldest-swigger-in-town-is-103-on-girls-weekend-in-Blackpool.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221427/Google-power-Searching-web-slow-advance-dementia.html ) to 2010, including coverage in 2010 before her death, e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254940/Move-Lily-Allen--theres-new-Twitterer-block-thats-104-year-old-Ivy.htmlhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1561547.ecehttp://www.techeye.net/internet/worlds-oldest-twitterer-invited-to-downing-street. The coverage is not only national, but also international, e.g. NRPhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93619406, Times of Indiahttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Heads-and-Tales/103-yr-old-woman-is-oldest-Twitter-user/articleshow/4536225.cms, Sydney Morning Heraldhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/90yearold-becomes-online-date-doctor/2008/08/21/1219262417191.html (all these are from well before her death).  Given the geographical and chronological spread of coverage, this is not a  case. Now, regarding  argument. First, since she is no longer alive, the thing to cite here is  rather than . Second, and more importantly, this is an example of a frequent misinterpretation of both  and . These principles do tell us to ''cover'' the even if it is notable. In the case where notability of an event is significant and the event is essentially about a single person, we still, appropriately so, have articles about the notable events in question (such as various "murder of ..." articles. In this particular case, we might move the title to something like Oldest internet celebrity, but is there really much of a point in doing that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: per ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per Lugnuts "Being old and using a computer isn't notable." Exactly. It is ridiculous. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia. SO we have a biography about a person who used facebook and twitter who happened to be old. If you put it in perspective it is newspaper fodder certainly not long lasting encyclopedic material...She is worthy of mentioning in in either the facebook or twitter articles as being the oldest user but a BIOGRAPHY ARTICLE on her embarrasingly non notable life before the age of 100????? "After several years in Bedford, the family returned to Bradford and Bean began working for Arthur Crossland, a local mill owner." Ooooh soooo notable...... Surely this is ONE EVENT. This is a classic case of where something should be summarized in a parent article on an event/institution, in this case website and refraining from having a biography about the person. There should really be stronger guidelines in this respect if this doesn't fail our  guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: random nobody who lacks significant coverage in any reliable sources beyond her being the "oldest person on Facebook" (so freakin what?).  Fails per , ,  and frankly just goes against general . What next, the oldest person who uses Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: The notability of the topic seems clear.  For example, see ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Oc76tQ-O68oC&pg=PA10 Social Networking for the Older and Wiser'' or ''http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254940/Twitters-oldest-user-Ivy-Bean-meets-fans--Gordon-Sarah-Brown.html Meeting with Prime Minister''.  We have extended coverage of this sort over multiple years in major news media and books all over the world - an easy pass of  and .  And how come there's a mob here?  Ordinary people don't get this much attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BASIC)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS applies, and  (in spirit if not in letter). This is a trivial passing news story, not an encyclopaedic article; I see no evidence that the subject has achieved lasting notability. (If they're still writing about her next year, or even next week, I'll change my mind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)