Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Coyne (giant)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Coyne (giant)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia is not the Guness Book of World Records. Merely being the tallest person in the world at a given time is not enough to show notability, and the sourcing here I do not think is enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was able to find this in a brief search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks to be a source very local to where Coyne lived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  333-blue  at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the two existing sources in the article, the extra source from BeanieFan, and the lasting coverage from Guinness over at least a couple of decades (from the editions I've checked). At worst, a redirect to List of tallest people would be an other option rather than deletion, per WP:ATD.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, being 8 feet tall is very rare and is surely a keep worthy thing as is being in the guinness book world records.
 * Height records are not a sign of default notability, and merely being mentioned in the Guiness Book of World Records is not a substantial coverage incident, so it really does not add toward passing GNG, let alone on its own constitute enough to justify keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I do think that lasting coverage from Guinness over at least a couple of decades is grounds for keeping, and shouldn't warrant a delete, not by much though, but still worthy of a keep. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources are authentic, worthy of a keep Proton Dental (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2022 (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.