Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Lucas (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Lucas

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No independent notability besides reaching the age of 110. This person is now "too young" to be included in the top 100 List of British supercentenarians or List of the verified oldest men. Nothing to preserve. — JFG ^talk 11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like his reason for not serving in either World War and he played a ball game for 50 years. There is nothing to preserve about this man, including this WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just living a long time does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, two WP:ROUTINE birthday articles and one unlinked article does not make someone notable. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB would apply even if "notable". I also agree with the nom for deletion as there is no suitable table or list to redirect. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage apart from some reports of his 110th birthday, and of his death. Therefore, I would say he does not meet WP:GNG, not because of the quality of the references included in the article - that is not an argument for deletion, and not because he "just lived a long time" - that does not preclude anyone from meeting WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2018 (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.