Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (3rd nomination)

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. Tone 21:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Gerena Rivera

[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)

Time for another AfD. The previous two had so many GRG SPAs that any conclusions from them are meaningless. No meaningful coverage besides routine notes such as obituaries, and we're left with WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. When you strip away the information on other people, alleged longevity standings, and alleged records, there is essentially just trivia fluff about her family and info that fits in a list left. The article clearly fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality belong on a list, where they are easier to view, not this permanent WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Once the fancruft trivia of various old-age rankings is removed, we have a non-notable biography, besides this person's exceptional longevity. Her entry in the list of American supercentenarians is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 03:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the 5 references, source three doesn't work so can't comment on it. Sources one (1 slide of out 51 for a powerpoint) and three (a GRG table) only tell us her name, age and country. The two obituaries, while they go to two different sites, are actually the same article so only count as one reference. One WP:ROUTINE obituary and two references which only confirm name and residence does not make someone notable. Put her on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per JFG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just living super long is not enough to make someone notable. Especially since in some ways it is not so much living a long time, but being recorded as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. There was also an 2015 article article at TIME in 2015 where she was mentioned, but it was a passing mention, more like an image caption. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:42, 12 November 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.