Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Benkner

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.

Charlotte Benkner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

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

She was the oldest until it was proven she was not the oldest. Fails

• Delete Led an ordinary life, and received a bit of incorrect publicity calling her the oldest then-living person, when she wasn't. Fails
  WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep passes
  talk) 10:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply
  ]

How? According to one editor writing 5 books, one on the NYT Best Sellers List for 5 weeks, is not enough to pass GNG.[1] Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is an extraordinarily poor argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge basic details to appropriate list. EEng (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:NOPAGE, virtually nothing in article that could be considered encyclopedic, once the OR, SYNTH and TRIVIA are removed. Possible merge, but how many minibios is too many? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or merge with
  WP:GNG, and enough for at least a mini-biography. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Really? the oldest person ever who was born in Germany isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 11 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Keep and Expand The article is well-sourced and concerns a woman is the oldest known person to have ever been born in present day Germany. Article should be expanded, not deleted. 930310 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Keep The strong claim of notability is backed by the required reliable and verifiable sources needed to create an appropriately significant encyclopedic article about the subject that meets and exceeds the
  WP:BIO standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge Apart from the Guiness book of records, 4 of the remaining 5 sources do cover her in significant detail. The Berliner Zeitung source only has her as a passing mention at the bottom of the article. Despite the sources, her life was so uneventful and non notable that beyond the current Start class it is, there is little that could be done to expand it. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Charlotte Benkner is the oldest german person ever.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Merge/Redirect I think much of the discussion here is off the mark. Notability has been demonstrated, but that is not enough for a standalone page. Per NOPAGE and PERMASTUB, this topic is far better served by merging this article into the relevant list; there will never be enough material to justify an entire page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2015 (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.