Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Ashmall


 * 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. Ultimately whether this meets notability comes down not to the independent sources (reliability or veracity of their claims notwithstanding) but from significance. In this case multiple passing or non-central mentions and chronologies do not accrue by some formula to the multiple significant sources required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Overturned to no consensus per deletion review. 103.6.159.69 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ferdinand Ashmall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply having a claim of being the oldest person in the world is not sufficient for having a separate article. Part of a series of stubs and page creations by a now-banned sockpuppet. The one source listed is possibly a WP:BLOG and only seems to be citing his own obituary as a source. We have no evidence about the reliability of Ms. Julia Hynes who wrote it. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a blog it is a manuscript from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. A blog is a chronological format, it has no standing on reliability and more than the format of a newspaper does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOPAGE as usual. Actually, the Hynes piece is reliable (Harvard owns a copy, if that tells you anything) but Ashmall is just a datapoint. EEng (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that the single source IS a reliable source but it's still a single source. That doesn't qualify as notable. OTOH, I learned a new word from this article, "necronym", so it's not a total loss. But what the heck is a "secular Catholic Priest." David in DC (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Church's primary concern right now is with the sexular priests. EEng (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group.  Montanabw (talk)  04:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, he was best known for being "the first person known to reach the age of 103." Do you think being the first person to reach each age is notable? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pending review by GRG" - Umm, GRG is not the default source for notability on Wikipedia. Notability is defined here as significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, independent of one another and of the subject. GRG governs what goes on the GRG tables. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service for expanding GRG's audience. David in DC (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dolt misread GNG as GRG. Dolt strikes his comment. D'oh!. I apologize. David in DC (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not good enough. EEng (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction, the sources only confirm he lived until 103. There is no source that he was in fact the first "verified" (whatever the hell that means) person to be a centenarian or to reach 103. There are other individuals from before his time at Longevity myths and Longevity claims and this feels like WP:OR to state that Ashmall was the first person "verified" to reach 103 as we don't have any sources that even say that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete. Assumption that being the oldest automatically confers notability is incorrect. Subject must have sufficient encyclopedic coverage to justify an article. In this case there is no such coverage. Therefore clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 07:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep lots of good references here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are all passing mentions, mostly of his passing in fact. There is literally nothing more that can be added from sources like etc. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep As expanded, the article supports the rather clear claim of notability with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Earlier votes, prior to the expansion, should be reconsidered or given lesser weight. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What claim of notability? The statements that he was "the second person verified to reach the age of 100" or "the first person known to reach the age of 103" have no sources and otherwise he was man from Elwick named for his uncle, was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and moved to Esh before dying in New House, County Durham. Technically all we know based on reliable sources is that he was a priest who lived to 103 year old in the 17th and 18th centuries. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to read the article by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research to get that information. It is a long article but worth the reading. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does it say exactly that? This version has three footnotes. The second is a GRG table from 2007 saying "Oldest validated centenarians by year" with no details and sourcing "Julia Hynde" [sic]. The Hynes piece describes 3 reported and 5 calculated ages with Ashmall being one. She reiterates that Ashmall lived to age 104 which is wrong but generally I don't think is particular dispute. However, she in fact says "If Reverend Ferdinand Ashmall really was 104 years old at his death and William Badger died at a similar age, there was likely to have been someone dying at a later age in the population at risk of 22 to 25 million in England between 1537 and 1800... meaning that she even admits that she believes that he wasn't the first 104-year-old or the oldest one or anything like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He was the first person recorded to reach 103 or 104. It is a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear situation, or in this case an old person dying with no one taking notice. Someone has to record it for us to know about it. Civil recording of births, marriages and deaths in England and Wales didn't start until 1 July 1837. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
 * You keep saying that but no source actually says that. This is classic synthesis of sources: the source that have been hand-picked all provide examples of individuals less than 103 before that date. Then, using WP:OR to state that anything else is a Longevity_claims (see Zhang Daoling or Chen Tuan or Live Larsdatter there) or a Longevity myths, you claim that this was the first "record" claim (again, whatever that means) which conveniently just claims that the other claims don't count. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy that only gets solved when one of the sources that "count" finds another person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Performing mathematics is not original research, any more than counting the years between birth and death, to add an age-at-death, that isn't mentioned in an obituary. Mathematics is objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What math? Math is "he's 103 years old". OR is "he's the first to be 'recorded' as 103 because we ignore the other people who claim to have been 103 before him." It's not objective to say that he is the "first" anything. If your argument is that he is the first person claimed to be 103 past the 16th century and before the 19th century, that's what he is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

keep. Clearly notable. The first person in all of human history to reach not just age 100, 101 or even 102 but to reach the AGE OF ONE HUNDRED AND THREE is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.59.137 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)  — 166.176.59.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, nothing says he's the first person to reach 103. EEng (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

166.176.57.4 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As discussed elsewhere, no source seems to say that. EEng (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable in many reliable archives and peer-reviewed literature, and passes WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE by a mile. Referenced in many books, as well as national and university archives . This article is a clear keep.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete personally don't trust the dates given, he could very well have been 80 when he died and I personally would not trust the word of the church on this...didn't Methuselah live to be 900+ so why is a 103 old man important?-- Stemoc 04:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you trust a biblical claim to 969 but not a documented claim to 103? *facepalm* -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

166.176.57.4 (talk) — 166.176.57.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Whether or not that's actually the case, we certainly do know how Wikipedia works. EEng (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying the 'people' that old us that Metuselah lived to be 969 are the same people telling us this person lived to be 103...-- Stemoc 21:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The story of Methuselah was written over 2,000 years ago. Ferdinand Ashmall's story was written in 1798. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Oshwah. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This person is cited in various reliable soures, which indicates notability.  Bodgey5     (talk)   16:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Only possibly signifiant coverage I see is the Hynes piece. Which incorrectly, if any of this is true at all, gives his death age (aka-"reach" age, max age, final age...) as 104, the most important (to some) piece of information about him, they apparently got wrong. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he's one of only five known centenarians to have died before 1800 then he's clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But he's not. There's others listed at Longevity_claims. Do they not count? Either (a) those aren't based on reliable sources (and then why are they there are all) or (b) they are admittedly based on reliable sources but not the requisite "reliable reliable" sources that count for when people want to call them "recorded" or "verified" or whatever new term they like (which is really one source in all of this). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually only four people on that list died before 1800! So in what way does that negate what I said? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are you still refusing to accept the concept of age verification, when clearly the consensus outside of Wikipedia is that it's important? It's not about some sources being "super reliable", it's about the fact that some sources actually attempt to prove longevity claimants' ages, and others don't. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? Do we only care about fact when there is a specific interest in the person reporting to "prove" something? So are only the GRG and the Max Plank sources reliable or relevant sources? Then why are we including anything else from the other sources? Is a newspaper who reports someone's birth and death date trying to "prove" a longevity claim? Are the articles that reference Ashmall's birth and death date trying to "prove" anything? Do the other sources not count? As I said before, are they only good when they back up the sources you like and garbage when they disagree? Are we now up to four sources that count, and the rest be damned (unless they support the GRG)? You already tried a nonsensical "all newspapers are not reliable sources" RSN discussion which went nowhere, is this just another round in the "here are the sources that matter"? So we don't even look for a source (of any type) that actually says this was the first recorded 103-year-old person and any other articles that have sources should just be treated as persona non grata and ignored as if they don't exist? That's the problem with this walled-garden idiocy, everything that exists only matters if the GRG approves of it, if not, this garden must be kept pristine with its own theories and statements of facts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈discuss 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources help it to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Which sources? and in what way do they help? I cannot see it but I'm open to persuasion. David in DC (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Very easy to find sources, e.g. . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2015 (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.