Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Bean
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
— User:Nsk92, 17:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)