Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Teillet

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. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Teillet[edit]

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing there as usual. EEng (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no policy-based reason to retain this article. It cites no reliable sources. It does not purport notability, as that term-is used on Wikipedia. A determined group of hobbyists are asserting, in a large number of cases, that being a "record-holder" for evading the grim reaper long enough to outlive one's age-peers is inherently notable. There's a technical term to describe this assertion: wrong. David in DC (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973 NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2015 (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.