Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Berner (supercentenarian) (2 nomination)
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 as oldest man ever to live in New York City. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Berner (supercentenarian)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Carl Berner (supercentenarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see how this article made it past the first AfD discussion. This man was never the oldest in the United States, or the oldest man. He was the oldest man in the Northeastern United States, and the 2nd oldest in New York City (behind Susannah Mushatt Jones. Does this truly qualify one for a Wikipedia article. Also, some users in the first discussion noted that he was a civic activist and toymaker well known in his area. That does not qualify him for a Wikipedia article visible to the world. Ikeepforgettingmyusernameandcre (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - nominator is obviously another sock of notorious sock-puppeteer DogsHeadFalls. He'll be blocked soon enough, this AFD will be closed as speedy keep and we can all move on with our lives. What a massive waste of time. Previous AFD (from another sock of the same person) is here. Stalwart111 03:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the nominator's status on Wikipedia, this is not a discussion on their credentials. This is a discussion on the notability of Carl Berner about whether he merits an article of his own. I have to agree (Delete) because he was never notable for anything other than being the 2nd oldest American man, and the fifth oldest man at the time of his death. He can be mentioned in a list, but not an article of his own with as much detail as this article has.74.75.219.176 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His "status" is blocked, as yet another confirmed sock puppet of DogsHeadFalls. This nomination is just a failed, pointy attempt at block-evasion. Stalwart111 07:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl Berner is not notable because the nominator of this afd is a sock puppet. Likewise, if the nominator was a legitimate user, that is not what would make Berner unnotable either. There is no relation. Berner is not notable independent of whether the nominator is blocked or not, or a sock puppet. If the nominator nominated an article about the 5th cousin of Barack Obama (for no reason other than being the President's cousin), they would be right in nominating it for deletion, whether they are a sock puppet or not. Berner is still not notable enough for anything more than maybe a redirect or a mention in the List of supercentenarians from the United States. I still vote delete74.75.219.176 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to !vote all you like - this was nominated only recently and cosensus determined the subject was notable. Nominating the article again so soon would be considered disruptive even if the nominator were not a sock-puppet. But he is, so we don't even need to bother with arguments about whether this should have gone to WP:DRV instead. Stalwart111 18:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha - I've just had a look at your contributions - you're obviously DogsHeadFalls. LOL, how pathetic. Stalwart111 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl Berner is not notable because the nominator of this afd is a sock puppet. Likewise, if the nominator was a legitimate user, that is not what would make Berner unnotable either. There is no relation. Berner is not notable independent of whether the nominator is blocked or not, or a sock puppet. If the nominator nominated an article about the 5th cousin of Barack Obama (for no reason other than being the President's cousin), they would be right in nominating it for deletion, whether they are a sock puppet or not. Berner is still not notable enough for anything more than maybe a redirect or a mention in the List of supercentenarians from the United States. I still vote delete74.75.219.176 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His "status" is blocked, as yet another confirmed sock puppet of DogsHeadFalls. This nomination is just a failed, pointy attempt at block-evasion. Stalwart111 07:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the nominator's status on Wikipedia, this is not a discussion on their credentials. This is a discussion on the notability of Carl Berner about whether he merits an article of his own. I have to agree (Delete) because he was never notable for anything other than being the 2nd oldest American man, and the fifth oldest man at the time of his death. He can be mentioned in a list, but not an article of his own with as much detail as this article has.74.75.219.176 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to close - article was nominated only recently and closed as keep - this nomination is pointy, disruptive and constitutes block-evasion to boot. Stalwart111 18:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd close as SK#2, but the IP editor wasn't found to be a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DogsHeadFalls/Archive, so the delete !vote technically bars that closure. czar · · 05:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - on priciple. Bad-faith and pointy nomination supported only by quack-tastic IP. If a solid mass of genuine editors want to support deletion then I'll yield. Stalwart111 10:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. IMHO, significant coverage puts this past GNG. Nominator is welcome to disagree, but in this case nominator has demonstrated he or she is clearly here for some reason other than creating the best online encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2013 (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.