| Revision as of 21:35, 3 November 2010 editMilowent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,701 edits cmmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 3 November 2010 edit undoCvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,542 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| :I'm inclined to agree that the quoted language from the centenarian list ought to apply to super-centenarians (and even super-duper-centenarians), as well. But we need not reach that far to resolve this case. All we need do is determine if being the oldest man in Europe, absent any other special, reliable, verifiable characteristics or achievements, is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on en.wikipedia. Per nom, I think not. ] (]) 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | :I'm inclined to agree that the quoted language from the centenarian list ought to apply to super-centenarians (and even super-duper-centenarians), as well. But we need not reach that far to resolve this case. All we need do is determine if being the oldest man in Europe, absent any other special, reliable, verifiable characteristics or achievements, is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on en.wikipedia. Per nom, I think not. ] (]) 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Commment''': Nomination simply says "He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country." Europe is not a country. Second, I know we've had lots of AfDs on supercentenarians before, as we have tons of articles on them, so the nomination by itself doesn't tell me why we should delete this one over any other one. E.g., ]. If not kept, the content needs to be merged into an article such as ], as was done in the case of ]. In this case it would be ]--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | *'''Commment''': Nomination simply says "He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country." Europe is not a country. Second, I know we've had lots of AfDs on supercentenarians before, as we have tons of articles on them, so the nomination by itself doesn't tell me why we should delete this one over any other one. E.g., ]. If not kept, the content needs to be merged into an article such as ], as was done in the case of ]. In this case it would be ]--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ** I'm not ]; the intro said "Belgian Supercentenerian", so that's what the nomination was talking about. — <small>]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span>  ]</small> 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 3 November 2010
Jan Goossenaerts
- Jan Goossenaerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country. Fails WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete couldn't find anything of use in google news. Secret 16:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep hes a supercentenarian, and hes been the oldest man in the country for years, and if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country. Longevitydude (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Being the oldest verified man in a continent is notable, and I know some people who have access to other articles about him.Longevitydude (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why is it notable to be 100? Why not 97? Why not 103? Even the Lists of centenarians says you need to be notable for something other than being old to be included. This guy is old. So? The youngest person in Europe was born 0.0004 seconds ago. SO?? — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hes a SUPERcentenarian, hes at least 110, that was a list of centenarians, not 110+ year olds, and being the oldest man in a continent is notable. The article is because hes the oldest man in Europe, not just because of his age. Longevitydude (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did it say, other than being oldEST, this guy is the continent's oldEST verified man. Longevitydude (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- So, simply being alive is notable? Certainly that doesn't fit under WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 19:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to a recent physical, I'm alive. But I'm definitely not notable. So that can't be it. David in DC (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- So, simply being alive is notable? Certainly that doesn't fit under WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 19:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did it say, other than being oldEST, this guy is the continent's oldEST verified man. Longevitydude (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hes a SUPERcentenarian, hes at least 110, that was a list of centenarians, not 110+ year olds, and being the oldest man in a continent is notable. The article is because hes the oldest man in Europe, not just because of his age. Longevitydude (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why is it notable to be 100? Why not 97? Why not 103? Even the Lists of centenarians says you need to be notable for something other than being old to be included. This guy is old. So? The youngest person in Europe was born 0.0004 seconds ago. SO?? — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Being the oldest verified man in a continent is notable, and I know some people who have access to other articles about him.Longevitydude (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The logic for inclusion is faulty. Someday--perhaps very soon--this man will die. He will then no longer be the oldest person within a given geographical area. What will be the justification for the article THEN? The even less notable "He USED to be the oldest person within a given geographical area"? Or "Here lie the bones of a guy who was briefly non-notable for being the oldest person in a geographical area"? He is not sufficiently notable now, and the moment he dies he becomes completely non-notable. Let's not wait till then. Let's delete it now, because we're only going to have to delete it later. True notability is not something that expires with death. Qworty (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary, he will still be notable because he HAD the title, and when you live that long then you can have the nerve to say simply being alive, and yes, its easier to be a professional athlete than a supercentenarian, there are more athletes than male supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Back that up with numbers. What percentage of people are professional athletes? What percent are supercentenarians? The differences, according to our guidelines, is that these athletes get constant significant coverage, where as an old person gets none. I don't care about this person, who is insignificant on just about all accounts. 100 years from now LeBron James will still have some sorts of records that are compared. This guy will not be important at all, just like now. — Timneu22 · talk 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Back that up with numbers. What percentage of people are professional athletes? What percent are supercentenarians? The differences, according to our guidelines, is that these athletes get constant significant coverage, where as an old person gets none. I don't care about this person, who is insignificant on just about all accounts. 100 years from now LeBron James will still have some sorts of records that are compared. This guy will not be important at all, just like now. — Timneu22 · talk 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary, he will still be notable because he HAD the title, and when you live that long then you can have the nerve to say simply being alive, and yes, its easier to be a professional athlete than a supercentenarian, there are more athletes than male supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- There were articles about him before he became a supercentenarian, so don't talk about one event hes had coverage for his birthdays way before 110, and the other event is becoming the oldest man in the continent. Longevitydude (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- How is Being the oldest any less notable then being the tallest, shortest, or heaviest? their all in guinness world records Longevitydude (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Guinness is a reliable source. But it is not a guarantor of notability. Guinness has its standards for notability. We have ours. They are not coterminous. The tallest, shortest or heaviest person ever might be notable for our purposes. The current tallest, shortest or heaviest person in Europe? Not so much. David in DC (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- How is Being the oldest any less notable then being the tallest, shortest, or heaviest? their all in guinness world records Longevitydude (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- There were articles about him before he became a supercentenarian, so don't talk about one event hes had coverage for his birthdays way before 110, and the other event is becoming the oldest man in the continent. Longevitydude (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I believe there's no policy or guideline that decrees that being the oldest man in (or perhaps on) a continent is, per se, notable. I've occasionally believed six impossible things before breakfast, so I could be wrong. If I am, please show me where to look. (Interesting, but probably not dispositive, is the fact that one of the "impossible things" in the White Queen's oration to
Alice is a claim to be a centenarian.)
- We edit articles one at a time hereabouts, so I'm not sure that "...if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country" is particularly relevant. One need not delete speedily if an article about a living person doesn't include unsourced derogatory information, and I don't think anyone's contending that a longevity claim is derogatory, so we've got an eternity to deal with these other pages.
- I'm inclined to agree that the quoted language from the centenarian list ought to apply to super-centenarians (and even super-duper-centenarians), as well. But we need not reach that far to resolve this case. All we need do is determine if being the oldest man in Europe, absent any other special, reliable, verifiable characteristics or achievements, is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on en.wikipedia. Per nom, I think not. David in DC (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Commment: Nomination simply says "He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country." Europe is not a country. Second, I know we've had lots of AfDs on supercentenarians before, as we have tons of articles on them, so the nomination by itself doesn't tell me why we should delete this one over any other one. E.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martha Graham (supercentenarian). If not kept, the content needs to be merged into an article such as List of American supercentenarians, as was done in the case of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Nelson (supercentenarian). In this case it would be List of European supercentenarians--Milowent • 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an idiot; the intro said "Belgian Supercentenerian", so that's what the nomination was talking about. — Timneu22 · talk 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)