Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Wen
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 keep. More sources needed, anyway. - @pple complain 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Wen[edit]
Oldest living clergyman in the Orthodox church doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Especially not as a former title. SmashvilleBONK! 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. A person who lived 110 years is certainly my be as notable as the fattest people in the world. BTW, clearly satisfies WP:BIO: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." `'Míkka>t 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sufficient keep argument. Secondly, where are the independent secondary sources? There is one google news hit (which he is not the primary focus) and his paid obituary. Virtually every person that dies has an obituary like that. --SmashvilleBONK! 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep. If he fits into the scope of Oldest people and/or List of centenarians, then keep it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Dennis. Needs sources, appears notable. - Rjd0060 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point...there don't seem to be any sources because he doesn't seem to be notable. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that a lifespan of >100 years is unto itself notable. I could be wrong, granted, but is there any precedent that we have in either direction? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point...there don't seem to be any sources because he doesn't seem to be notable. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the centenarian article, there are 450,000 worldwide. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yow, that's a lotta people. Still, as it's conditional, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nom. Are we going to have articles on the tallest, shortest and best pinochle playing Russian clergymen? Noroton 00:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- '"Keep The oldest living person in a notable occupation is probably notable, and the sources seem to show others think so. DGG (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mikka. Rray 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Nom...I can see the way this is headed...although I'm a bit disappointed...as I mentioned...I can't find any sources to verify any of the claims made...but...it seems that being really old is considered enough to meet WP:BIO --SmashvilleBONK! 16:44, 16 November 2007 (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.