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 no consensus. Opinion is pretty evenly split, and I don't see any killer arguments on either side. I do see lots of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments on both sides. Looking mostly at the more cogent arguments, we don't seem to have the sources we should, but several of the people on the keep side assert that this person is so extraordinary that we can get by on the weak sourcing. Neither of these camps have unambiguously made their case, so No Consensus it is. --
RoySmith(talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC) --
RoySmith(talk)17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I nominated this page for deletion seven years ago and am doing so again for two reasons. The most important one is that
consensus has changed: in 2009 many argued to keep the article on the basis that being the oldest man was automatically notable. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards and
numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted/redirected based on their individual merits. This leads me to the second reason, which is that in seven years, it has still not been demonstrated that this individual is covered in multiple, non-trivial, third-party
reliable sources as required by
WP:N. Of the three sources currently on the page, one is a list (trivial), one is an obituary (not enough to sustain notability), and the third is an interest piece which adds value, but not to the point of this meriting a stand-alone article, as it could never be expanded beyond a stub unless the availability of sources is demonstrated clearly. Any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia
CanadianPaul15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - per WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Just because a few years has went by and the article has not expanded does not indicate that notability is faded. per WP:GNG.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and/or Redirect to
this table where he is listed. Per
WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines at the
WP:WOP Wikiproject he belongs on a list. The only information you lose by placing him on a list is that he worked and had his brain analysed. Which I don't believe is enough to justify a standalone article.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC) This editor has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.reply
The link provided by the nominator to "numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals" shows current consensus on the topic, as does the guidance at the World's Oldest People Wikiproject page.
David in DC (
talk)
16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being the oldest man in the world makes you notable". Anyway, the guidelines at the
WP:WOP Wikiproject tell us an article like this (only one or two sources establishing notability) belongs on a list.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Worlds oldest man is notable. Over the last few years we very properly removed a considerable number of articles on minor variations of oldest person in ___ and the like, but this one is sufficiently important. DGG (
talk )
08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOPAGE and
WP:GNG. I question whether two blurbs, even in good newspapers, is enough to establish notability. There's a whole lot of "world's oldest man is notable" in this thread, but not much backing that up. We don't have a notability guideline that says that, and I eagerly await sourcing that shows this guy is actually notable. So far, we haven't seen it. ~
Rob13Talk08:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with DGG that being the world's oldest man crosses a threshold of notability that "oldest man in country x" does not. It is enough to get him into the Guiness book of Records and having obits in both the Times and Guardian gets him past the GNG criteria. Yes, the details of the rest of his life are of little importance, but we choose, rightly or wrongly, not to have importance as an inclusion criteria. We have instead notability as our main criteria, and two major national quality newspapers and the world renowned Guiness book of Records have taken note of him and his life.
SpinningSpark23:30, 9 November 2016 (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.