Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Butterfield
- 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. JForget 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick Butterfield[edit]
- Frederick Butterfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD. My argument here is similar to the one I made for Frederick L. Frazier a year and a half ago. While I respect the fact that being the world's oldest man is now a very notable position that attracts more than sufficient coverage to pass WP:N, this was not the case in the 1970s. A Google search as well as a Google news archive search does not reveal any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article except for the news article cited by this article and a plethora of sites/lists that discuss his ranking amongst in history among the world's oldest people - aside from that one article, however, I have not seen evidence of any non-trivial coverage. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results; while I realize that these searches might not be entirely appropriate or relevant to the individual at hand, it does eliminate the idea that he is an individual of significant academic interest. I acknowledge that it might be more appropriate to merege/redirect him to List of British supercentenarians or something like that, but an attempted merge/redirect in the past was rejected. I would still support either of those ideas, however, if that were to be the consensus.
Simply put: this individual lacks multiple, non-trivial references in reliable publications to establish notability; his status as world's oldest man at one point does not confer automatic notability nor do 1000 mirrors of his ranking amongst the world's oldest people Cheers, CP 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The lack of coverage in the Google news archive is mainly due to the fact that it's largely/wholly American newspapers. As with (almost) anyone famous for their longevity - he was only notable towards the end of his life (nevertheless, still notable). He has been featured in various news articles (even though only one is cited), as well as the Guinness Book of Records. For someone who was notable only for a few years of his life 35 years ago, you need to appreciate that it's unlikely you'll find information through internet searches, but through newspaper searches instead. 35 years ago it would have only been Guinness World Records tracing the oldest people. Journals concentrating on investigating the demographics of the oldest old did not exist. I strongly believe his article has plenty of potential for expansion as currently the only appropriate accessible UK newspaper databases online are through The Times and The Guardian, both national newspapers. The Google news archive appears to have only recently come about and it may not be long until this spreads outside North America, or until other national newspapers and/or local newspapers in the UK develop their own online databases. A newspaper such as the Yorkshire Post, which covers Harrogate, where Butterfield lived may well contain more information about his life. Currently the only way to access this is by visiting the archives in person at Bradford. You say the references are trivial, but the references build up his biography including where he was born and what he did earlier in his life. As for there being "1000 mirrors of his ranking amongst the world's oldest people", that's completely not true. The GRG is cited for his date of birth and death and the article is not cluttered with random statistical statements such as 'He was the last surviving person from the 18xxs' or 'He currently ranks in the top 150 men ever'. I also disagree with using pages such as List of British supercentenarians as a dumping ground for stub articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles cannot be built on theoretical sources. Unless and until those sources are discovered, there's no need for him to have his own article. My grandfather could theoretically have plenty of newspaper sources about his career, given its nature, but if I can't find them, I can't build him a stub and claim that he's notably and that I "probably could prove it". Notability must be displayed. If sources are found, then I'm happy to consider changing my opinion, because I'm not opposed to him being on Wikipedia on principle, I just don't feel that he has (yet) met the (relatively) objective inclusion standards of Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The lack of coverage in the Google news archive is mainly due to the fact that it's largely/wholly American newspapers. As with (almost) anyone famous for their longevity - he was only notable towards the end of his life (nevertheless, still notable). He has been featured in various news articles (even though only one is cited), as well as the Guinness Book of Records. For someone who was notable only for a few years of his life 35 years ago, you need to appreciate that it's unlikely you'll find information through internet searches, but through newspaper searches instead. 35 years ago it would have only been Guinness World Records tracing the oldest people. Journals concentrating on investigating the demographics of the oldest old did not exist. I strongly believe his article has plenty of potential for expansion as currently the only appropriate accessible UK newspaper databases online are through The Times and The Guardian, both national newspapers. The Google news archive appears to have only recently come about and it may not be long until this spreads outside North America, or until other national newspapers and/or local newspapers in the UK develop their own online databases. A newspaper such as the Yorkshire Post, which covers Harrogate, where Butterfield lived may well contain more information about his life. Currently the only way to access this is by visiting the archives in person at Bradford. You say the references are trivial, but the references build up his biography including where he was born and what he did earlier in his life. As for there being "1000 mirrors of his ranking amongst the world's oldest people", that's completely not true. The GRG is cited for his date of birth and death and the article is not cluttered with random statistical statements such as 'He was the last surviving person from the 18xxs' or 'He currently ranks in the top 150 men ever'. I also disagree with using pages such as List of British supercentenarians as a dumping ground for stub articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, here'sa 1964 article on him in the Tucson Daily Citizen, and here's a 2008 mention in the Yorkshire Evening Post, which indicates more coverage there in 1974, and there is the Times obit in the article.John Z (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would consider the second one a trivial mention, but the first one is one step closer to me be convinced to change my mind. Cheers, CP 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Marginally notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. There's nothing marginal about Butterfield's notability. The oldest man in the world is notable, and with all due respect for the ingenious arguments advanced to the contrary, the idea that the world's oldest man might not be notable is totally untenable.
Another untenable suggestion is the one that someone who was historically the world's oldest man is somehow less notable than the world's oldest man now. If something was ever notable, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia contains, and should contain, material on all sorts of subjects of purely historical interest.
Finally, the idea that the article is not sourceable and/or not expandable doesn't survive scrutiny either. The records from Butterfield's lifetime will be on paper rather than online, but that doesn't mean they do not exist; there will be parish records, birth/death/marriage certificates, obituaries and so forth.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The world's oldest documented person, oldest man, and oldest woman have always received massive newspaper and television coverage. This is not the American Wikipedia. This is not the Internet Wikipedia. GHits do not prove or disprove notability. Hard-copy references are just as good as online ones. Notability does not have to be displayed ONLINE. --NellieBly (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We have articles on individual episodes of TV shows. I see no reason why an article on someone like Frederick Butterfield cannot exist. The category "world's oldest man" is a self-limiting one: there might be billions of men on the planet at any one time, but only one can be (recognized) as the "oldest"...the same goes for the "oldest woman."
When it comes to cases like Frederick Frazier, with no content other than the statistics, I can understand merging into the national lists. But here we have a little more to go on than just a name and age.Ryoung122 03:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable then and now. That this was pre-internet makes a difference to the coverage, but not the notability. DGG (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2009 (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.