Talk:Ivy Bean

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Longevity Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Ivy Bean is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

State

I suspect there is or has been another article. This person was well known as the oldest internet user and I imagine the deletionists were attempting to suppress her article. She was as well known as many other media celebrities of lesser note. Lycurgus (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well known for nothing of any importance, that is...

And all of the other media celebrities that have done nothing will be culled decades down the road as well. Nobody will remember or care. Most people don't even remember the Jim Carrey of the twenties - William Haines, who was for a year or more, the biggest star in motion pictures. You think anyone will care about this person in 50 years? Good luck with defending the archival of fleeting notoriety.Paradise coyote (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad

Didn't know about Ella Schuler. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ella isn't yet a celebrity as Ivy was, probably because of the Twitter following the latter had. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see final decision was keep. Lycurgus (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I am usually a delintionist, but she made the Telegraph obituary page. V. Joe (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally an anti-delitionist, but this article is definitely worth deleting. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG!

Wow! Go dig up all the others who made that page and give them an entry too!Paradise coyote (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise... A simple look at your talk page speaks volumes. Perhaps your purpose would be better served in efforts to not bully people into your opinion. Mrs. Bean's obituary has been featured in newspapers worldwide. If nobody remembers her in 20 years, delete the article in 20 years. If the Google News page links to her Wikipedia entry from it's main screen, and it does, she's enough of a celebrity to stay for now. If you have some snappy, witty retort, which will undoubtedly *NOT* dazzle me with your insight, please feel free to leave it on my talk page.174.70.120.166 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last tweet

Bean's last post on Twitter read "going to have my lunch now will be back later".[1] Her myriad faithful twitterers forever await that post-prandial tweet. Perhaps in time that last pronouncement will rank with the last words of Captain Lawrence Oates? WWGB (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her last tweet before she fell off her perch. 81.155.229.23 (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There are articles of far less importance that are happily kept on WP. Just because x% of people have no interest in a particular subject or person doesn't mean that it should be deleted, since perhaps x+1% of WP users are interested but don't say anything. Bear in mind that this lady's notability couild be measured by a relatively high number of Facebook friends. Not a big thing as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but will respectable in that particular community. Also remember than many of her contemporary fans (of whom there are probably not many) will not be computer literate and thus may not be savvy enough to sign up for Wikipedia and argue the case for retaining the article.

To Paradisecoyote I say this in rebuttal: who are we to foresee who will and will not be remembered in the future? I found the link to Ivy's article from the front page, where there is a Recent Deaths link, which lists every death that WP users see fit to record. Will anyone care about the majority of the people on there in 50 years? The same argument for deleting this article could be used about the entire Recent Deaths category in some people's opinion. In addition, will someone in the US really be bothered about some 70s soccer player's bio or an Irish snooker player? Selezen (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After all, why not?

I agree with Selezen right above me. In my opinion, we have well enough cyberspace available and not enough light-hearted entries, that'll make this worthwhile. The old lady was a niche-celebrity, granted, but I have seen entries in Wiki that are absolutely unworthy of any consideration and yet are unchallenged in their position. Give the lady a break, I say. Max Ventura, Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.91.10 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lord and Lady Guiness

I spent quite some time searching this noble family - in vain. There's no hint on the Greens Norton page; the official website mentions a Mr. Guiness at least ... Could it be there's a peer without one single entry on the internet??? --Hodsha (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]