Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Harrison Holcomb


 * 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 and redirect to List of the verified oldest men. MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison Holcomb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails to meet WP:N with significant coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing in the guidelines that says "being the oldest X makes you notable" so we default to WP:GNG. Both references (110th birthday report and obituary) are both WP:ROUTINE coverage. Taking out most of the trivia leaves you with nothing outside List of the verified oldest men. Per WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines at the WP:WOP, subject belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing routine, reliable sources with significant coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not seeing how a birthday report and an obituary show "significant coverage". A Google search throws up nothing more. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Guinness mistakenly named him the WOM, resulting in media coverage. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Clearly notable. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) — User: (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closing admin - the IP address above who restored this article from a redirect was blocked for ban evasion. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage is for a trivial fact, he did nothing of note, he is not notable, not everyone who has been mentioned in human interest stories in the paper is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom. Once the usual unencyclopdic trivia and fanfluff is removed fails WP:NOPAGE WP:PERMASTUB. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 22:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules do not define trivia, if it comes from a reliable source it is information. Calling something trivia is just saying WP:I don't like it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules do not define "intransigent" or "pedantic" either. Nonetheless, Justice Potter Stewart's observation about pornography is apropos. David in DC (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This particular bit of nonsense is an archetype for bios of non-notable holders of mythical "titles" for long-livedness. Relitigating these same articles after they've been redirected is an especially galling waste of time. I hope the block of the IP who started this latest round of tail-chasing cuts off the cycle, but I'm not sanguine about the likelihood of that happening. David in DC (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A rather clear claim of notability backed up by several reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about the subject, clearly exceeding the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect I weep freely for the people who keep inflicting these articles on WP.  E Eng  14:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to List of the verified oldest men. (Buck up, EEng.)  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to a relevant target, possibly. Obviously a case of WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Additionally, WP:BLP1E, since he only received brief coverage as a human interest for his age. That's more-or-less within the spirit of BLP1E, if not the exact wording. ~ RobTalk 18:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.