Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Raby (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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Raby[edit]

[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)

Time for another AfD. Having a debunked claim to be super old is not inherently notable, and having no reliable sources from this century (indeed, none from after 1901) is a good indication this is thoroughly non-notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sustained significant coverage in the New York Times, medical journals and other newspapers explicitly causes the subject to meet the GNG. Contrary to the nom, who seems to have failed to do a simple WP:BEFORE check, there is a New York Times obituary from 1904 (see it here), and the medical journal coverage is from 1910.
We're still not even in this century, or even within 100 years, there. Hardly sustained. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, seeing as there's no policy that I know of that defines the number of years that coverage is needed in order for it to be sustained, I propose that coverage over the course of 14 years (1896 to 1910) is sufficient to meet WP:SUSTAINED. Bear also in mind that notability is not temporary. "Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Sustained coverage and ongoing coverage are two different things. The subject clearly met the GNG then and therefore is notable now. schetm (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when the coverage was, shouldn't necessarily matter, but we also have to consider the scope of the coverage. I don't know exact history of NYT, but based on their wikipedia page, they had a circulation of about 9,000 in 1896. Would it still have been only considered a local/regional(including NJ) paper back then? The times weren't even being circulated to Philadelphia until 1910, and thats not that far away, so I can't think they were more than a local/regional paper during the time these articles came out from them. The Oxford Ledger and News and Observer would both be local from North Carolina(where he was born). Sophia Gab is also mentioned in that medical journal article, and if there is/was local coverage from Chicago, would that also make her notable? This all depends on what we consider the Times back in 19th century just local or not. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the notoriety of the New York Times at the turn of the century, nor can I speak to Sophie Gab, but I do know that Raby gets close to significant coverage in this Washington Post article from 1910, and the medical journal article was repeated in a number of medical journals across the country. Given all this, I don't think the coverage was strictly regional. schetm (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Lack of recent coverage is not a reason for deletion if the topic's notability has been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His fake age claim got some buzz in various publications at the time, but has not WP:SUSTAINED the passage of time, nor were sources like the NYT WP:SIGCOV at the time these articles were published. They were just local news. Therefore, he also fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National coverage over the course of 14 years is easily sustained coverage. It doesn't have to be sustained over the course of centuries because "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". Even if the NYT was a local paper back then, the coverage therein is still significant because the articles about Raby "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." schetm (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by schetm WP:GNG is not temporary. He is GNG for the claim, not sure how he loses his GNG after the claim is debunked or unsustained. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 16:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The age of the sources is irrelevant per WP:ITSOLD. And what really seems to be driving the nomination is systematic dislike of old people contrary to core policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2019 (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.