Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Thomas (supercentenarian)

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) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Thomas (supercentenarian)[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 17:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person was indeed the oldest living person at time of death. The articles of more recent WOP (world's oldest people) aren't up for grabs, so why is this different. Also, nominator has literally nominated about 30 such articles, I don't consider that very helpful. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I "literally" haven't. This article is different for the reasons discussed above. Canadian Paul 18:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have, if you read the word literally figuratively. EEng (talk) 22:38, 16 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) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could userfy this until I can provide enough RSes? DN-boards1 (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can concentrate on notable subjects, especially those covered in existing articles? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can be constructive and let me work on making it meet notability guidelines? DN-boards1 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete EEng (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has only one reference, a "source" that has nothing in common with the reliable sources required by policy. The subject is not notable in the sense that this term is defined in Wikipedia's policies. We have a single sentence that focuses on the subject as a contestant in some mythical competition to be the oldest person on earth. He won, briefly. Hooray! Except, of course, that we then have a second sentence that is nearly inscrutable, contradicts the first sentence, and seems to violate the wiki-policy against disclaimers. Really, what is one supposed to make of this: "(Note: this is a retroactive reconstruction of history. In reality, the Joe Thomas case was not verified until July 2002 by the SSA study, and Guinness did not recuperate the "oldest living man" category until 2000)." David in DC (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973 NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:23, 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.