Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia De Muth

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. Consensus is that the coverage falls fouls of WP:MILL and/or does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia De Muth

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

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

Lack of coverage from reliable and secondary sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is entirely without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking any sources, let alone sustained WP:SIGCOV of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. Also fails WP:NOPAGE, as any meaningful info could fit on a list. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG. Content copied from other Wikis including Gerontology Wikia (all subsequently deleted as failing RS). Article creator is a newbie editor apparently unaware that Supercentenarians are not inherently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added two articles and see a number of others in newspaper archives. If editors would refrain from voting and simply watch the page until I am finished improving the article, that would be cool. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG. Articles on her appeared across the country; her death was reported in the New York Times. Another user and I have added some of these articles to the Wikipedia article. There are more that could be added, but I am hoping this will suffice. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times has all of 3 sentences on her, and of those one is half about her husband. Nothing more than routine, bare bones obituary information. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete votes were made before sources were added. The statement above that more sources can still be added is credible, because her status as world's oldest person is clearly notable for the media. I think the current level of sourcing is sufficient, but in any case no article should be deleted when there is clear potential for further sourcing. Spicemix (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That simply having a pulse for longer than anyone else is inherently notable has long been disavowed. All of the sources besides the 3 sentences in the New York Times are local coverage, which is helpful for details but doesn't at all establish notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can list some of the articles from other cities, but please note that the Washington Court House Record is or was published in Ohio, which is not a neighbor of Nebraska, so interest in her life and its span did travel beyond Nebraska. Being the world's oldest person is no small thing. Alas, it seems that perhaps no one was aware at the time that she was the world's oldest; they only thought she was the oldest in the state. She may have seen even more coverage at the time had it been known. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abilene Reporter News June 30, 1976 Page 55

Sarasota Herald Tribune June 30, 1976 Page 9 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Express June 30, 1976 Page 2

Findlay Courier June 30, 1976 Page 19

Cumberland News July 2, 1976 Page 3

Lake Charles American Press July 11, 1976 Page 11

Chillicothe Constitution Tribune June 30, 1977 Page 1

Connellsville Daily Courier December 5, 1977 Page 4

New Castle News December 5, 1977 Page 19

Kittanning Leader Times December 5, 1977 Page 8

Arkansas City Traveler June 30, 1977 Page 4 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give time to consider new sources added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with new sources. 172.58.110.250 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by DiamondRemley39. We don't judge based on why the person was notable or whether we respect the person's achievement. She received significant coverage nationwide; the New York Times obit demonstrates that there was interest outside of the local area. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least all the sources I could readily check above are the same basic "She lived a long time, and then she died" formula repackaged over and over again, which is completely run of the mill for such people. None that I could check had any other meaningful coverage of her. In case it's not clear, I think this should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per the northern-lit blade. The sources listed above are passing mentions of literally a sentence all saying effectively the same thing, and that sustained, persistant coverage in reliable sources is not. The topic fails the most WP:BASIC requirements we have. ——Serial 11:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Echoing Serial Number 54129 & The Blade of the Northern Lights. We indeed need in-depth significant coverage & not mere passing mentions. Celestina007 19:43, 29 July 2020 (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.