Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart


 * 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   no consensus. Although a reminder to any unfamiliar editors that using sockpuppets to affect the result is more likely to result in the opposite closure than you wanted. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob Taggart

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO; longevity cannot be equated to notability. A long-lived but unremarkable life. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the oldest person in Scotland is notable. BBC News reports that he was the oldest person in the UK, after the death of Harry Patch.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: Taggart was never the oldest person in Scotland, nor the oldest person in the UK. WWGB (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mentioned in multiple notable news sources; and being the oldest person in the UK is very notable. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - He was the 23rd oldest person in the UK when he died. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correction, he was never the oldest person in Scotland. However, I stand by my position, as Taggart's multiple mentions in non-trivial publications meets WP:NOTE. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of what reports say, research has shown that he was 'only' the second-oldest man in the UK. Unfortunately in the field of longevity, there are a lot of claims flying around, and there is also a lot of mis-reporting. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bob Taggart died a day after this article - his family probably wanted him to know he was the oldest in Britain before he died (but that does not mean to say he was). He was not the oldest person in Scotland, he was the oldest man in Scotland. Is being the oldest man in Scotland notable? The oldest man in Wales is 'only' 105. We should reserve articles for: 1. Men over the age of 110 - as they are validated by the Gerontology Research Group. 2. At a push, for the oldest man from Scotland ever (Bob Taggart wasn't even the second oldest Scottish man ever). 3. For the oldest living man in the UK - The oldest man lives in England and keeps himself to himself and does not want attention, so there is not enough information to warrant an article for him. Once we start making articles for 'oldest men', where do we stop? As I said earlier, the oldest man in Wales is 105. 110 is a clear cut off point we need to adhere to for those only famous for their longevity.SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO, WP:NOTNEWS. Didn't even reach 110. Not notable enough for a biography here and notable simply for his age, which in itself isn't even all that exceptional.--Ελληνικά (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThe article WAS sourced and it is correct and deleting the article would be disrespectful to Bon Taggart, he never did anything to you.(70.153.167.98 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) — 70.153.167.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Haha, I'm changing my vote to delete now.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If all we can say about the notability of someone is "he lived a long life", he doesn't need his own article. Easy to merge to Oldest_people. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - everyone seems to be wrapped up in the philosophical debate about whether being old is enough to establish notability. Notability for the very old is established the same way as for everyone else: non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Mr. Taggart is the subject of several news stories such as: Daily Record, The Independent, Daily Record 2, Rutherglen Reporter, and Daily Record 3.  His obit was published in at least 5 reliable sources including the BBC, which is a strong demonstration of notability.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about WP:NOT? I really don't see how this person can be considered to be historically notable. — Rankiri (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS is not intended to mean nothing in the news gets a page. It is meant to say, something that is in the news for a few days usually isn't notable.  However, Taggart was been in the news for at least 5 years - the coverage is not just related to his death --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per thaddeusB.--Judo112 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to comment on the subject's notability but if the only thing that is notable about a person is his age, does he really need a separate article? Kotiwalo (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - While I'm no authority on longevity, it's well-known that women, as a group, outlive men. As an example, on the Oldest People from Britain page, also listed above,there are only five men listed as being over 107 years of age, as opposed to 101 women. Perhaps the age standard for men should be lower than that for women, i.e. 110 and 105 (or whatever ages the longevity experts here might deem fit).  At the time of his death, Mr. Taggart was the oldest man in Scotland, a country with over 5 million people (about half of these people being male), which provides an additional qualification for notability.  Tombarrister (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - be that as it may, men still remain less notable. In addition female supercentenarians tend not to get their own article until around 113 (unless they are the oldest in their country, or notable for some other reason). There is about a 3 year gap and most men reaching 110 will get their own article. I can see this article becoming orphaned if it does get kept - no pages dedicated to the oldest people would be able to link to it as he did not reach 110. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * KeepHe is Scotland's oldest man so yes he is notable(74.249.134.59 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * — 74.249.134.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KeepBeing Scotland's oldest man IS notable just because he isn't a supercentenarian doesn't mean he isn't important.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * — 74.249.134.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep being the oldest man in Scotland is worthy of an article, besides it breaks no rules,it has a source and citations.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * — 74.249.134.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please stop repeating that, it won't help at all. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepWell my vote is keep, how can you delete his article, just because he isnt a supercentenarian doesnt mean his accomplishment as Scotland's oldest man doesnt mean anything,what rule does the artticle violate, does it not have a source thats reliable and it even has a citation.(Kingcouey (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep please be considerate of his friends and family,deleting his article would be disrespectful not only to him but to his friends and family and whoever made the article(Kingcouey (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Repeating things over and over won't help. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keepthen what will help, how do i even vote for keep, by just typing keep?what would help keep the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcouey (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These are not votes, these are supposed to be arguments. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm trying to think if there's an appropriate longevity article that he could be merged into, but I don't think there is because, philosophically, I don't see much notability here but, as ThaddeusB has pointed out, he does meet the basic requirements of WP:N. Just because he meets, WP:N, however, does not mean that he needs his own article - if, however, there is no better place to put him for now, then he does satisfy the requirements for being on Wikipedia. So my ideal suggestion would be merge but, if that's not possible, then it's a keep. Cheers, CP 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its not possible so i guess it is keep(74.249.134.59 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep according to the rules articles must have sources, which the article has,and they must also have citations,which the article has.The source listed is reliable and besides there isn't anything in the article that isn't accurate.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete - I fail to see how living to an old age automatically imparts notability. That's not to say that no centenarians merit inclusion, but each needs to be evaluated against WP:Notability standards. --ponyo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Old age does not impart notability. Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources soes, and the source in the article is one of many directly about the subject that establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources is indeed important/necessary in determining notability, however WP:BLP1E states that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Taggart should be included in the Oldest people article, but does not merit his own article. Of course this is just my opinion and I'm happy to let the cards fall on whichever side consensus lies. --ponyo (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The oldest people is specifically for the validated oldest living and the oldest ever. He was neither the oldest man from his country, nor over 110. There's simply nowhere on that page for him to be placed. Even Harry Patch, 2 years older, is too young to be listed there (when deceased). SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; I misinterpreted the "Oldest living people since 1955" table. Honestly though, that just makes me more certain that he doesn't merit a stand alone article. It appears I'm in the minority though (even discounting 74.249.134.59s disruptive keep !votes). --ponyo (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What would it take for you to keep the article(74.249.134.59 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep The article isn't because of age, its because He was Scotland's oldest man,isn't being the oldest notable.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep If age didn't matter then why delete the article just because he didn't reach 110.his record,not his age is what merits the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.134.59 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it wasn't a small accomplishment,like getting an a on a test,it was a big accomplishment,like being the oldest in a country.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Keepif he was one of the oldest living men in Scotland then i would agree with deletion but he was THE oldest living man in Scotland that's the reason hes worth being noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.134.59 (talk)
 * Delete - I suggested on the talk page of this article that Mr. Taggart would be eligible to have an article at age 110, since Wikipedia has had a tradition of listing people who have lived to that age at the Oldest people article. My condolences to his family and friends, but it appears that he has passed away before that time. ThaddeusB makes a good point that significant coverage in reliable sources is the basic threshold for notability in WP:N, but has failed to address WP:BLP1E which suggests that a person's biography is not notable if coverage of them is for a an event they were part of, and not the person specifically. I believe that the curiosity of his age was a singular event that was covered. All of these policy arguments aside, from a WP:IAR approach, let's look at this logically. Mr. Taggart's biography is a stub and is likely to remain so permanently. Meaning no offense, but if a person's sole legacy is being old, and not even breaking any records in the process, how do we build an article? He worked on railways from age 14 until retirement. There's nothing to add that wouldn't be trivial in a biographical article. --  At am a chat 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep stubs get to stay on Wikipedia but you people wanna delete an article with a decent amount of information.(Kingcouey (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep I agree with Kingcouey and the anonymous user that Bob Taggart earned an article.one thing i noticed is you people say age doesnt matter yet because he isn't a supercentenarian you wont give him an article, if he was Scotland's oldest man then does it matter if he made it to 110 or not.(Longevitydude (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Kingcouey. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not kingcouey, we just share the same computer.(Longevitydude (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Riiiiiiiight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We just share the same computer,that doesn't mean we share an account,we each have our own account, why cant you accept that.(Longevitydude (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Because I have every right to be suspicious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And im just letting you know that were not the same person,we take turns on the computer.(Longevitydude (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) I'm not puppeting anything,and im sorry about all the keep votes, but i really like the article and i don't want it deleted.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) He claimed to be a world war one veteran, that's notable, the article could talk about him claiming to be in world war one and then talk about how his claim was debunked.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) Wilfred Baker was one day younger than Bob Taggart, but no one has a problem with him having an article.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) :Comment - Wilfred Baker was a WWI veteran. Bob Taggart never claimed to be a WWI veteran, and was therefore never debunked. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) World war one ERA veteran,jozef kowalski is a world war one ERA veteran and he doesnt have an article.(Longevitydude (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) *Dude. WP:WAX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) like i know the rules.(Longevitydude (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Remember that meatpuppetry is also forbidden. In any case, it doesn't matter how many users support anything, but what their arguments are. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. I have some issues with arguments made by others:

A. "longevity does not, in itself, confer notability". Not true, longevity confers exceptionalism and when a person reaches a certain threshold, they become notable for their uniqueness. Whether Mr. Taggart lived long enough to reach the "notability" threshold is another issue. He did not reach age 110, but it could be argued that he was notable as the "oldest man in Scotland." In this case, ordinal position may help his case.

B. "One event" rule. I believe this is made so that, for example, a witness to a fire is not notable, even if mentioned in multiple reliable sources. In this case, Mr. Taggart was noted prior to his death (the already existed) and most of the coverage occurred prior to death. Therefore, it cannot be said to be "one event".

C. "there are no links to other articles." Actually, there are. Click on British centenarians  and there are similar articles such as Alfred Anderson, Wilfred Baker, and the like. Ryoung 122  23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Robert i know we usually dont see eye to eye but thanks for trying to help save the article.Longevitydude (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete .(see below) From WP:ONEEVENT: when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Today, there are about 74,000 centenarians in the United States alone, and this number is estimated to surge 600,000 by 2050. I don't see what makes this individual more notable than the rest of them. — Rankiri (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you aren't suggesting we change the article to "109 year old man dies (Scotland, 2009)" but that is what the portion of 1E you quoted is saying. Clearly, in this case, the man's name is the appropriate place to have the article.  Secondly, he has been covered on his birthday regularly for at least the past 5 years - that isn't 1 event, but rather several closely related events.
 * In response to the 2nd part "I don't see what makes this individual more notable than the rest of them": he is notable because multiple reliable sources independent of the subject have covered him. That is the same criteria all subjects are deemed notable.  If reliable sources choose to cover all 74,000 centenarians (which isn't the case, obviously.) then all 74,000 could have pages.  Thankfully we aren't going to run out of paper, so having many articles on centenarians won't hurt anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:BLP1E:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted
 * From WP:NOT: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
 * I mean, if you look at your own sources, they are filled with similarly trivial "news" stories like "Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs not faking illness, insists son", "The 50 best womenswear" or "Exclusive: I can't stay in same place for more than 20 minutes because of Twitter girls, reveals Twilight star Robert Pattinson". I think Wikipedia content should be held to higher standards and the above policies seem to back up my view. — Rankiri (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia has articles on Ronnie Biggs and Robert Pattinson.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In regards to BLP1E: Please explain why you feel that Taggart's coverage only stems from some larger event he was a part of. The intent of this policy is protect people who are merely mentioned in the news, but aren't the news themselves, from getting pages.  It is not intended to say people known for only 1 thing aren't notable.
 * In regards to NOTNEWS: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" - so which describes the sources for this article - announcements, sports coverage, or tabloid journalism? The idea of this policy is to prevent every "news of the day" item from getting a page, not to say nothing covered primarily by newspapers is notable.
 * Your examples of other stories in newspapers in irrelevant unless you are trying to say newspapers in general aren't serious sources. Notability isn't supposed to be a judgment call according to current guidelines - if multiple RS cover it, it is notable.  If it is notable, it gets an article unless it fails under "What Wikipedia is not".  You may think the news media covers many trivial topics that don't belong in the encyclopedia - and many would agree with that - but current policy doesn't say "something is notable if the consensus of Wikipedians who show up to its deletion discussion think it is."  It says "something is notable if is cover by multiple reliable sources and doesn't fit into WP:NOT."  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I already explained my position. The newspaper examples merely illustrate that the bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Please use common sense and tell me why you think this person is notable without relying on the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources", which I think can be disputed under WP:NOT. — Rankiri (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I don't think this fails under NOTNEWS, you do.  I don't think notability should be subjective, you do.  My position is be is notable for being really old because multiple reliable sources felt he was notable enough to be covered, you don't.  As such, there is nothing else to say really. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion put please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that notability should be subjective. I said that Wikipedia's entries should be suitable for an encyclopedia and that I see no reason to put every single trivial news story on a Wikipedia page. My position, therefore, is fully consistent with WP:NOT: slow news days shouldn't affect the quality of Wikipedia. — Rankiri (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that certainly wasn't my intention. I guess I misinterpreted something you said.  For the record, I do not believe there is anything wrong with that position even if it is not one you hold. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More trivia. According to this, there were over 9,000 centenarians in Britain—including 680 in Scotland—back in 2008. The article also says that the UK's population of centenarians is forecast to soar to as many as 1.2 million by 2074. — Rankiri (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. All that means is that reaching age 100 is not in itself notable. However, being the #1, oldest-man in Scotland may be notable. There may be 74,000 or even 1 million centenarians, but only ONE can be oldest man. That, in itself, means that articles created on this basis are self-limiting. Also, Bob Taggart may not have been the UK's oldest man after all, but he was the oldest man in Scotland for about two years (since the 2007 death of Wilfred Baker). Might I ask how many tennis grand slam titles have been played since then? Clearly, the coverage of "oldest persons" is far more sparse than SPORTS coverage, where even college football players and individual high schools have their own articles. How many high schools are there in the U.S.? How many college football players are there in the U.S.? If you're not interested in this subject, then don't read the article. It seems this subject is far more sparing and self-limiting than many, many others topics. When a mountain expedition climbs a major mountain, there's more than one person involved. When Robert Peary went to the North Pole, he had several people going with him. Here, we have a sort of limitation of just the first position. Not the top 100, at least on a national level.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times must it be said, hes more notable for being Scotland's oldest man.67.33.105.219 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Its been pointed out a lot and I agree that age plays a major role in notability.67.33.105.219 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — 67.33.105.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :* Pardon my straightforwardness, but I just don't see how a 109-year-old outliving a 113-year-old for 20 days is an encyclopedically notable subject. If any of the above forecasts are true, about half of Wikipedia will soon be filled with similar articles about otherwise non-notable elderly persons. — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you at least get the facts right? Harry Patch was 111 when he died July 25. Also, Taggart was not the oldest man in the UK so the '20-day' comment is off. He was, however, the oldest man in Scotland for approximately two years, following the death of Wilfred Baker in 2007. Your fears of "half of Wikipedia" filled with articles about "elderly persons" is a joke. Let us compare, for just a moment, the number of articles on college football players (all youngsters) verus the number on very aged persons. It is clear that the youth are far overrepresented on Wikipedia, sometimes for doing nothing more than appearing in a few college games. Regardless of what others think about this article, your arguments seem very biased, off-putting, and cynical. You also fail to comprehend that creating articles based on ordinal position (#1) are self-limiting: it doesn't matter if there are 1 million centenarians, only ONE could be the oldest man, and ONE could be the oldest woman. So that's two out of 1 million, minimum. Also, the average length of time one holds the world title has been 9 months, but for a smaller nation the average is even longer, due to a smaller sample size. Mr. Taggart was the oldest male in Scotland for about 2 years. That's two World Series or 8 tennis or golf grand slam championships. I hardly see that as a daily event, whether or not this article is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.118.157 (talk • contribs)


 * At the risk of sounding flippant, at least football/tennis/golf players train and perform to achieve notability. (Super)centenarians just manage to stay alive longer than their contemporaries. A notable achievement or just a quirk of nature? WWGB (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, individual articles provide a level of human interest, such as oral historians seek to record. Someone who is 109 can tell us, firsthand, what the world was like before even WWI started. Biographies, even if brief, go beyond the temptation to simply turn people into stats alone, and also provide the basis for further research (should a case be extraordinary). No one is going to argue that Jeanne Calment is not notable or a "one event" person. The question is, where do we draw the line? Let's suppose we generally use the idea of 110+ worldwide, with sufficient media coverage. That could be augmented for situtations such as "oldest twin" or, in this case, oldest man or woman of a particular country/nation. Of course that gets into the argument about whether Scotland is just a sub-unit of the UK, but it is obvious that the UK is a special case: the United Kingdom was created by a personal union, where the monarch of Scotland was also the monarch of England, and so the two became fused into one entity. The recent re-creation of a Scottish parliament, however, suggests devolution (the USSR and Yugoslavia broke up along ethnic lines). Any nation organized with ethnic sub-units, rather than geographic subunits, is at risk of breakup. That makes Scotland a special case.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The same arguments are being repeated all over and over again, it won't help. It's not about how many times something is told, but how well and by what arguments. Cite a policy that warrants notability for the subject, or something like that. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction. Bob Taggart was born one day BEFORE Wilfred Baker, so there is an issue of how long Mr. Taggart was, in fact, the oldest man in Scotland. It seems that, in any case, it was well in excess of two years. One possible solution is to create an article, list of the oldest persons in Scotland and then merge Mr. Taggart into that.76.17.118.157 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the above suggestion. We already have pages for different nations. See List of British supercentenarians for example. I really don't think we need an article specifically about a handful of Scottish people. When you start going down to such low denominations, reporting gets a lot poorer. Sure, we might have known who the oldest Scottish man is now, but as you mentioned - it's not very clear when he actually became the oldest Scottish man, so it would be difficult to create a list of people who were the oldest man in Scotland. The same goes for the oldest Scottish person. I have considered changing List of British supercentenarians to List of the oldest people from Britain to be able to encompass a list of the oldest men, but even then, Bob Taggart would not make the list. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. After taking a closer look at the subject, I realized that I'd completely misread the news article. Not only was Bob Taggard the oldest man (male) in Scotland for several years, he was also named the oldest man (male) in the UK several weeks before his death. You can blame the news article for its confusing use of the language (apparently, in BBC's world, "man" means "male" and "person" means "female"), or you can blame my inattentiveness and my apparent dislike of old people and/or gerontologists. Either way, I'll just apologize for wasting your time and change my earlier suggestion to keep as I no longer believe that my objections were valid. We can argue about the exceptional value of longevity all we want but ThaddeusB was right: none of this changes the fact that the person is passably notable to satisfy the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Zerbey (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, please. I know this may not be important to most Americans - but as a second generation American (from Ireland) married to a Scottish immegrant, is is important to some of us. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triste Tierra (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, he lived to a grand old age but so did a lot of other people. If he was a supercentenarian then it may be notable.
 * Delete. Really nothing more than WP:NOTNEWS. Simply outlasting other people doesn't mean notable, not matter how many papers mention it. And a WP:TROUT for all the sockpuppets that made this more tedious to follow. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If you outlast enough people, you;re notable, and the exgtent of sources is sufficient to show he is so regarded. We follow the sources in things like this.    DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that the sockpuppet flood has ceased, I'll be glad to announce my wish to keep the article for now, with the following things that should be noted: First, he is notable because he has had a lot of media coverage. I would personally see him as a one-eventer, but he does meet the notability guideline. Secondly, we absolutely positively need to establish a consensus whether longevity warrants notability, simply to help with similar cases to come. Thirdly, we must consider whether other people outliving him (very likely in the near future) are notable as well and do they take away mr Taggart's notability. I personally would see little point in having an article about some guy who had the longevity record twenty years ago, if there is nothing else notable about the person. On the other hand, notability is not temporary... confusing. We need to establish a common set of rules for cases like this. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (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.