Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Backman Shull (2nd 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Backman Shull

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

A woman who was the seventh oldest person in the world, fourth oldest in the US and ultimately just the oldest in South Carolina is not sufficient notability. The articles here (the GRG only provides a single point of reference and Find-A-Grave just acknowledges her grave) are all obituaries and are WP:ROUTINE coverage. The only notable information is her birth and death information ~~and suggest converting to redirect per WP:NOPAGE to List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States#Oldest_living_American_by_state.~~ Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out redirect per Rayukk's actual reading of the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per Ricky81682. I'd vote against a redirect, since it links to "Oldest living American by state", and Mrs. Shull has already passed away. rayukk | talk 10:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "the fourth-oldest person in the United States and the seventh-oldest in the world for little over a month" -- imagine, a whole month. "Even as her hearing and vision failed, friends said Shull didn't mind visitors and liked to clutch their hands while she talked" -- oh for Pete's sake. WP:NOPAGE EEng (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Article appears to be a copy-paste from somewhere.[reply]
Delete The only retrievable source is a 4-graf obit that contains much less info than what's in our article. The subject's actual age appears, from the article, to be a matter of dispute. WP:NOPAGE. WP:GNG. WP:SIGCOV. WP:SNOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would we keep an article that says this: "Coles said, "There was some question whether Shull was actually born in 1895, but his group recognizes her 1894 birth date." Shull's birth date and the day she was married were recorded in a family Bible, which alerted relatives to her age. "I didn't know Mom was that old," Smith told The State. "And I wouldn't believe it until I saw it in the Bible." David in DC (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time. Someone will come up with a reason to do so. The first discussion included "Notability is not a deletion criterion" as one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 11 November 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.