Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irma Mae Weule

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 and redirect to 1906 San Francisco earthquake, where there is a one-line mention about the person. Surviving an earthquake and having an obituary aren't sufficient reasons for notability.--PeaceNT (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irma Mae Weule

[edit]
Irma Mae Weule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Simply because you survived an earthquake doesn't make you notable. As a side note, only 89 Googles; seems that she hasn't done anything besides survive the earthquake. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does she warrant mention in the List of centenarians? It's debatable. She was eye-witness to an event of long-lasting historical interest, but seemed to have lived a perfectly ordinary life thereafter. Her Chronicle obit even mentions that she requested no funeral service. Probably Delete is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - According to the SF Chronicle article, Weule was the oldest living member of a dwindling group of survivors of an earthquake which occured a 102 years ago, which is pretty significant - if not be design than by chance/fate. There are nurmerous other people with Wikipedia articles who also achieved notability later in life (or after death) by being some of the last witnesses of a historic event. The last living survivors of the Titanic, for instance, have articles (I know its not an earthquake) and they have achieved mention by the media by just being in the wrong place in the wrong time. The last living veterans of wars or certian battles also deserve, and often have, articles on Wikipedia, though some of them had little or no notable role within the war, catastrophe or other historic event. Likewise, there are now articles on some of the last surviving members of a certain community, town, language, ethnic group etc. (Please don't delete those articles, I'm just pointing them out as examples). '
The trend in recent years by historians, journalists, archivists, and yes - reference books / websites - has been toward a renewed focus on documenting "ordinary" citizens who have witnessed extraordinary (or even ordinary) historic events. Yes, the biography of Irma Mae Weule may not have much "notability" outside of San Francisco or the San Francisco Bay Area, but she is of local and historical interest to that particular area. She is of enough "notability" that it warranted her a sizable mention in the San Francisco Chronicle following her death. (For the record, I don't live in California, but I do have a background in history).
As Wikipedia and other similar online encylopedias continue to expand of the coming years, there will no doubt be a shift towards more articles that will be of notability/interest just to a particular city, region or small community. On the surface, many of these articles, such as Weule, may not seem to have much notability to users at large, when in fact they do have notability to a particular community. The challenge will be to be to preserve articles, such as Irma Mae Weule, which may not seem to have notability on first look, but are actually locally significant. Wikipedia gives users the ability to include and, more importantly, archive articles and subject matter that would never be included in a traditional print encyclopedia or book. That's one of the reasons to advocate the inclusion of more obscure subjects such as this biography. My reasoning may not be perfect, but please take advantage of this positive attribute of Wikipedia. Keep Scanlan (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"There will no doubt be a shift towards more articles that will be of notability/interest just to a particular city, region or small community." The expectation of future notability violates WP:CRYSTAL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that this article contributes notable information in that it allows the reader to enjoy a case story of one person's life from a particular period in time. This is invaluable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saria (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we are concerned with real notability; reader enjoyment is not a reason to keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the List of centenarians, Weule’s name technically could be included at present because it isn’t a List of Notable Centenarians. But the centenarians article shows that even an incomplete list would be thousands of names long, and the present List is one of notables. I therefore submit that: Irma Mae Weule’s article be deleted; the name of the centenarians list be changed to List of Notable Centenarians; and that Weule's Chronicle obit (which is the source of her current Wiki article) be linked to the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake article, where there is also a link to one Herbert Hamrol (Herbert Hamrol, 104, one of the last survivors of 1906 earthquake). Eye.earth (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irma_Mae_Weule&oldid=1071175747"