- Elsie Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Classical case of WP:BLP1E. Just living for a long time does not make someone notable. Also fails WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect Rather than deletion it would be better to redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect would work for me, too. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- She is not just a super centenarian, but the oldest living person in Florida and the last person in Florida born in the nineteenth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.155.164 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect. As is usual with most of these supercentenarian articles (Bernice Madigan is another) the notability is marginal at best. Adding trivia (which surely violatess some wiki policy) does not add notability. Previouss cases such as this have resulted in a Redirect to a List by Country but as the List of supercentenarians from the United States is already at 126k I can't see the benefit of adding such a minor case as this would benefit that article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- She's already in the list, so you wouldn't have to add anything to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect — JJJ (say hello) 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep — She is the 8th oldest living person in the world. If this were a discussion of tennis player rankings, no one or almost no one would suggest deleting the Wikipedia page of the 8th best curernt tennis player. Why should it be different for the oldest verified living people in the world? Futurist110 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, the 8th ranked tennis player certainly would be notable and justifiedly so, but this person is not notable. The difference is that to become the 8th ranked tennis player, you'll have to win a number of important tournaments. Those multiple events will be covered and almost certainly there will be articles discussing this person's biography in-depth. To become the world 8th oldest person, all you have to do is continue living. Usually there is some coverage in local rags. Not really the same accomplishment or level of notability... --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- To continue living at an age where the annual odds of dying are 50% or more is a very large accomplishment. I'd be extremely impressed if you or anyone else on Wikipedia managed to keep on living for years after turning 110, considering that at that age it's extremely easy to die. It's easy to live for an additional several months when you're 20, 30, or 50. Not so much when you're 110 or 113. Specific supercentenarians do often get covered by the media, as in this case. If you're saying that the media covers tennis players more, perhaps, but then again the same thing might be said of media coverage of tennis players vs. scientists, even though the work that scientists do is much more important. Futurist110 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- But the thing is: to go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you. So I don't really see it as an "accomplishment". And whereas the coverage of tennis players may actually tell the reader something of interest, with (super)centenarians it usually is limited to "she still likes to smoke" or something trivial like that. Very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting, apart from being long... --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- False. One's actions do often affect how long one will live. If one avoids overeating, using drugs, getting sick, et cetera, and continues to have a will to live, then one's odds of living another several months after 110 go way up, as do his/her odds of reaching age 110 in the first place. How long we live is based on both potential and expression of that potential. If someone had great genes but partied all weekend and didn't eat right, they wouldn't be pushing 114. To claim that "very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting" is POV-biased and you should recuse yourself from this discussion for POV bias. Clearly, if you don't want an article on Wikipedia because "I don't like it," that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, "110th birthday", "111th birthday", and "112th birthday" are multiple events, each receiving coverage. Also, please read the info in the articles linked to her page. There might be some interesting stuff in there. Finally, in my opinion, the top tennis players don't have much practical value, since tennis is just a game. In contrast, supercentenarians are studied by scientists in order to see why some people live so long and how the human body and mind act at age 110+. I apologize if some of what I wrote sounds harsh, but I was just making an effective argument. Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh my. Your reasoning above contains so many misunderstandings about what an encyclopedia is or is not (and about WP policies) that I really have no time to explain in depth all the ways in which you go wrong. Just one point: if there is anything interesting about the life of this person (apart from just continuing living), please add that to the article. And I don't mean things like that she "uses her kitchen table as a piano" if she hears a song that she likes (a gem of information taken from the Tampa Bay Times reference in the article). --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- If redirected, and if she stays alive and moves up the rankings as the oldest living person, the page can always be restored and added to. — JJJ (say hello) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- For those enamored of living life to its fullest possible extent, myself included, the relavence and importance of Elsie Thompson's life increases in meaning both as she advances in age and others older than her, such as Besse Cooper, pass on. I have been "checking in" on Elsie Thompson on a nearly daily basis since her 112th birthday more than a year ago. I would enjoy learning more about her life. I hope that her article is retained in Wikipedia.Sanpete55man (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)205.197.208.65 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanpete55man (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- If redirected, and if she stays alive and moves up the rankings as the oldest living person, the page can always be restored and added to. — JJJ (say hello) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh my. Your reasoning above contains so many misunderstandings about what an encyclopedia is or is not (and about WP policies) that I really have no time to explain in depth all the ways in which you go wrong. Just one point: if there is anything interesting about the life of this person (apart from just continuing living), please add that to the article. And I don't mean things like that she "uses her kitchen table as a piano" if she hears a song that she likes (a gem of information taken from the Tampa Bay Times reference in the article). --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- False. One's actions do often affect how long one will live. If one avoids overeating, using drugs, getting sick, et cetera, and continues to have a will to live, then one's odds of living another several months after 110 go way up, as do his/her odds of reaching age 110 in the first place. How long we live is based on both potential and expression of that potential. If someone had great genes but partied all weekend and didn't eat right, they wouldn't be pushing 114. To claim that "very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting" is POV-biased and you should recuse yourself from this discussion for POV bias. Clearly, if you don't want an article on Wikipedia because "I don't like it," that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, "110th birthday", "111th birthday", and "112th birthday" are multiple events, each receiving coverage. Also, please read the info in the articles linked to her page. There might be some interesting stuff in there. Finally, in my opinion, the top tennis players don't have much practical value, since tennis is just a game. In contrast, supercentenarians are studied by scientists in order to see why some people live so long and how the human body and mind act at age 110+. I apologize if some of what I wrote sounds harsh, but I was just making an effective argument. Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- But the thing is: to go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you. So I don't really see it as an "accomplishment". And whereas the coverage of tennis players may actually tell the reader something of interest, with (super)centenarians it usually is limited to "she still likes to smoke" or something trivial like that. Very few (if any) of these people actually had a life that is even borderline interesting, apart from being long... --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- To continue living at an age where the annual odds of dying are 50% or more is a very large accomplishment. I'd be extremely impressed if you or anyone else on Wikipedia managed to keep on living for years after turning 110, considering that at that age it's extremely easy to die. It's easy to live for an additional several months when you're 20, 30, or 50. Not so much when you're 110 or 113. Specific supercentenarians do often get covered by the media, as in this case. If you're saying that the media covers tennis players more, perhaps, but then again the same thing might be said of media coverage of tennis players vs. scientists, even though the work that scientists do is much more important. Futurist110 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep (article needs definite improvement). The nom stated "Classical case of WP:BLP1E". WP:LOWPROFILE shows how WP:BLP1E is "often misapplied in deletion discussions". First, the article definitely can be beefed up with more details about her. First, to avoid COI, I work for Gerontology Research Group and I'm only here as a Wikipedia editor with my own personal concern about this AfD. Second, I'm uncertain how many times Elsie Thompson has been interviewed, but she has been interviewed by multiple sources for different birthday events; that is not one event, which meets WP:GNG. The nom did not explain why this fails WP:GNG. I unfortunately don't have them handy and I hope other Wikipedia editors can provide the necessary sources and citations to improve this article. Like a particular tennis event in where one played while 8th ranked in the world, a birthday event in where one is the 8th ranked in the world is *each* considered one separate event. After all, in neither case, the person doesn't maintain the same "status/rank" over time. Just because tennis is covered internationally on a much bigger scale than human longevity, they both still should deserve the same treatment. Like WP:LOWPROFILE points out at the end, the status can change over time and it's a very fair assumption that regarding human longevity events, the older the person continue to live, the profile increases from medium to high (if some considers this as a medium profile right now). "To go on living, you don't actually do anything, it happens to you" shows a lack of understanding in why humans are fascinated to find encyclopedic information about shortest people, tallest people, and oldest people in general. Being the shortest adult in the world "just happens to them", but they still get notable because of that nonetheless. Also, "having an interesting life" is not a requirement to keep a biography article alive. I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that the List of supercentenarians from the United States is already quite long so I also don't support a re-direct there. Instead, a keep of this article with improvements should be the way to go. Of course, if there are no further improvements, then I would concur with the consensus whatever that may be. CalvinTy 20:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)