Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresita Barajuen

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. (non-admin closure) !dave 10:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teresita Barajuen

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

The individual represented in this article received a brief burst of attention due to her age, which tapered off after her death. All three sources in this article, as well as nearly all the others that I could find in a good-faith search, are obituaries, which does not suggest that the subject meets the level of coverage that would satisfy the requirements of WP:N. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and, in this case, any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia Canadian Paul 15:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: world's longest-serving nun, coverage across the other side other big pond; quietly notable. PamD 10:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is it a problem if nearly all the available sources are obituaries? I can't find any guidance suggesting so. I've found more recent (and non-obituary) coverage but what I found there was briefer and did not add anything to what had already been reported. And the "event" is not solely that she lived a long time, or that she was in the monastery a long time – what is covered, briefly, is her quiet life. For me, a nice little biography. I'd have no interest in her name being included in a list of longest anything or a list of people who met the pope in strange circumstances. Thincat (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view, this bio does meet our general notability guidelines. The three sources already in the article are all legit, and the book refered to in the text of the article is probably legit, as well. There's no rule I know of that says obits are not enough. This one just doesn't look like the eldercruft AfD's noted by the nominator. The facts are not just about her daily life, what she ate to stay healthy or ~~where~~ who she beat in some mythical longevity competition. David in DC (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more refs. They're still obits, but I think this many obits does meet the GNG requirements of multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputable about her and her claim of notability meets and exceeds the WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The longest serving cloistered nun is quite an achievement, especially in the modern age. Notable enough to be the subject of independent coverage around the world. Plus, there are also Spanish-language and domestic sources that could be incorporated as well. ABC - from before her death ABC (newspaper) La Voz de Cádiz Scanlan (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2018 (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.