Edith Ceccarelli: Interstellarity ( talk ) 15:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I translated the article from German seeing it as describing the oldest living American and second oldest person in the world.  I think the article is notable.  Moondragon21 ( talk ) 18:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep .  If she was 2% older, this would be kept without question.  As it stands, the question is, how old is old enough, and in this context being the demonstrable second-oldest living person on the planet is probably sufficient.  BD2412 T 18:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources , as demonstrated by the citations to the Ukiah Daily Journal and Los Angeles Times , which both cover the subject in detail as the main focus of their articles.  Type her name into any search engine and you'll see there are plenty of sources that cover Ceccarelli.  To say there's "no evidence" it meets GNG is just plainly false.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 16:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOPAGE .  No encyclopedic content in this article that is not already present in the appropriate lists.  DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs ) 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems odd that you would oppose Edie having a separate Wiki page considering she's listed on the Wiki "Oldest Verified People", which is a page you are heavily involved in.  GermanShepherd1983 ( talk ) 02:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing odd about this at all.  I've followed Longevity articles for a very long time, and for most of that have been trying to keep the fanfluff to a minimum.  That includes numerous Afd's for articles about people who are insufficiently notable and/or do not have enough encyclopedic content to merit a stand-alone article, such as this one.  DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs ) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe we should nominate "List of Verified Old People" for deletion as well.    Seems to be all fluff, and it seems that a bunch of people that we supposedly "verified" were recently removed because they weren't in fact "verified", so the site lacks credibility.   It appears you have an agenda to get Edie removed.    It's not like her wiki page is causing any problems and some people enjoy reading about these super old people.  GermanShepherd1983 ( talk ) 16:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @GermanShepherd1983, Maybe you should join the 110 Club https://the110club.com/ .  There's a plethora of unencyclopedic-fanfluff content to keep you happy there.  Meanwhile, more cultivated readers can enjoy real Wikipedia articles about individuals who actually merit their pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:293E:3400:2757:C2C7:6ACD:F4B ( talk ) 18:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is Wikipedia, not the library of congress.  People come here to read interesting articles and find out interesting things, or to find out one specific piece of information.  Edith is currently the oldest currently living American, which is somewhat notable, and the exact question that I had searched that led me to her page.  There are articles on this site with far, far less encyclopedic information than her page.  There are some pages for members of state legislatures that simply state the person was a part of the state legislature and then died at some point in time, at least her page has something more interesting than "State Senator in Maine, died in 1982".  35.40.40.13 ( talk ) 23:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GermanShepherd1983 You had a clear point at first but WP:NOHARM is no reason to keep an article N1TH Music ( talk ) 14:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability given as she is the oldest living person from the United States and the second-oldest living person in general.  She has also gotten significant coverage from the media.  And eight other Wikipedias also have an article about her (this includes the German, Russian and Italian Wikipedia).  SouthParkFan2006 ( talk ) 10:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable for the reasons stated above.  Of course, the article could clearly be improved with additional facts and references, but does not warrant deletion.  Baldwin de Toeni ( talk ) 13:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Being the oldest living person in the United States at some point in time is notable.  Nine hundred ninety-nine ( talk ) 01:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :   She's the oldest person in the US and the second oldest living person in the world.   No reason to delete.  GermanShepherd1983 ( talk ) 03:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as she is the oldest living person in the U.S..  Article could use some more sources though.  Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 16:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of American supercentenarians , where she is listed.  Being the oldest person in X does not establish notability per WP:N , only substantial reliable coverage in sources does, and accordingly the above "keep" opinions should be discounted as at odds with community consensus.  See also WP:AFDP#Oldest people , which notes: "Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people.".  Sandstein 14:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "In most cases" most is not all especially when this one has more media coverage then your normal SC Wwew345t ( talk ) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Sandstein is correct that I do have to discount a number of keep ! votes that don't make arguments rooted in our policies and guidelines.  That said, we have some editors claiming the GNG is met and some claiming it isn't: further comments addressing that question may bring us closer to consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 04:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete GNG seems to be met, but I'm still not sure she's notable just for being old.  The article doesn't even say much, she got married, has children and danced until she was 114.  WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;[8] or The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary", I'm not sure she's any of those things.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the criteria listed there are many, many pages on Wikipedia that warrant deletion which aren't being discussed at all.  35.40.40.13 ( talk ) 00:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 00:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When they get nominated, and they should, they will be discussed and potentially deleted.  2A02:8388:293E:3400:1A05:2704:B5C8:99FC ( talk ) 07:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So what's the point of deleting because she's "not old enough" in your opinion only to have to add her back when she does finally get "old enough".  GermanShepherd1983 ( talk ) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete The article itself passes WP:GNG ,  but I don't see why she's notable and deserves an article purely because she was fortunate enough to get to the age of 115.  Per Oaktree b , she doesn't meet any of the criterion of WP:ANYBIO , so I'm leaning towards deletion based on his reasoning.  KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 07:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Sandstein above, the keep ! votes are invalid as contrary to agreed policy, and the delete ! votes ignore the existing listing in the named list  article.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The policy may be a thing everyone agreed to, but the discussion persists if this article meets the policy or not, because it's unclear.  As Extraordinary Writ stated "Sandstein is correct that I do have to discount a number of keep !votes that don't make arguments rooted in our policies and guidelines. That said, we have some editors claiming the GNG is met and some claiming it isn't: further comments addressing that question may bring us closer to consensus."  And I'm pretty sure every person who voted delete would agree with the page serving as a redirect.  SouthParkFan2006 ( talk ) 18:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of American supercentenarians , per Sandstein.  A stand-alone page appears not to be warranted, based on WP:AFDP#Oldest people , but I feel being the oldest American is notable enough to possibly warrant including a bio of her on the "American Supercentenarian" page.  Wiki O'Ryan ( talk ) 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Her notability is based on age, unless an objective criterion is established (a minimum age), it passes through WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Age is obviously not the sole criteria for meriting a page.  She has done nothing of significance apart from having lived an extremely long life.  Being the oldest in any particular country is also not significant enough to deserve a page.  Should she become the oldest in the world, obviously press coverage will increase and a mini bio or even restoration of this page may be warranted.  2A02:8388:293E:3400:1A05:2704:B5C8:99FC ( talk ) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per significant coverage in WP:RS .  Sources 2 (The Ukiah Daily) and sources 3 and 4 (Los Angeles Times) count as secondary sources.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as it is very divided.  I'm not sure what to make of the comment that GNG has been met but the article should still be deleted.  Notability is what we go by in evaluating articles in AFDs.  Also, the comment that "Delete" voters would be okay with a Redirect closure is, as far as I can see, speculation.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of American supercentenarians .  Oldest person or oldest man seems to be a reliable measure for notability on supercentenarians, but there is not enough expansive coverage for merely oldest in (X) country.  Generalissima ( talk ) 17:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - for all the reasons listed above.  For anyone who wonders why this woman deserves her own article, they might want to peruse Category:American supercentenarians , which so far has 81 articles like this one.  — Maile ( talk ) 22:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet there are thousands of American supercentenarians that don't have an article...  DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs ) 22:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DerbyCountyinNZ Yes but those don't have not nearly as many sources from GRG, or News organisations with information which isn't covered in the various lists.  She seems like an outlier in that regard and also is the oldest living person in the country at the moment, which makes her far more alike to the 81 which do have articles.  N1TH Music ( talk ) 14:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of them weren't the oldest in the Country nor had as much media coverage Wwew345t ( talk ) 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I understand the point that not all supercentenarians need articles and we need to avoid fancruft within wikipedia but this is clearly an exception.  The article obviously needs work and more sourcing however if you search, it is very easy to find, If you check the Gerontology wiki (which I know is unreleiable) and search the references listed there, she appears to have gained traction in the news for almost a decade now, and her life is far more documented than most supercentenarians even many who reached the same age as her.  And to add on she is the oldest living person in the USA and the second oldest living and currently placed 29th on the List of the verified oldest people And looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Branyas Morera there seems to be consensus now that the oldest living person is notable, whilst Cecarelli is only second, there is abundant information from reliable sources about her life beyond what is mentioned in various lists, the article just needs to be worked on.  Ceccarelli appears to be just as if not more notable than Tekla Juniewicz who survived AFD prior to the change which happened to WP:Peopleoutcomes at the beginning of 2023.  N1TH Music ( talk ) 14:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep most supercentenarians don't get alot of coverage but this one has even before she became the oldest in her state her birthday was reported locally since she was 108 now she has national coverage as the oldest living person in America if you have this much coverage from many different newspapers that should make you atleast notable enough for a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t ( talk • contribs ) 17:35, 4 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus