Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Francis (supercentenarian)


 * 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 Merged and redirected to List of American supercentenarians. Keep votes centre around WP:WAX and the idea that merging into a list cuts back on lengthy articles. This one was six sentences long, and is easily merged without losing a word. Lacking sources to meet WP:BIO at present. Resolute 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

George Francis (supercentenarian)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A very old person whose claim to notability is based on age, but the coverage appears to extend to only one article in a local newspaper. Probably best merged to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a few problems with putting it on a list. The main is they are poorly formated, don't follow requirements, and end up cutting back the few lengthy articles there are. It doesn't really make much difference whether it's in one big list, or a couple of dozen individual articles. The articles are tied together on a common listing of super-centenarians anyway. I also have trouble understanding why you have taken such an interest in this field of topics when it's outside of your knowledge, and outside your interests and main projects. I see your name everywhere. About two dozen articles, more probably, that you tried to delete were kept afterwards, and I would like to know, when the community voted you down, why you went ahead without anyones consent and against everyone in the fields opinion and made these unwieldy, badly formated, badly edited lists that serve no purpose really but to cram everything into one little box and shove it a dark corner of an attic. I know you've already gotten two of the main gerontologists, and main contributors on this site banned/blocked, (Robert Young and Bart Versiek, I believe his last name was). Mr. Young is in fact one of the most prominent Gerontologists in the world, having verfied and researched and discovered almost every validated Supercentenarian through his work as a chief consultant to Guiness. Oh well. I'm not interested in this field for the statiscal aspect, but then again few Gerontologists are, it's the historical aspect of it and the simple length of life. If one lives to 110, then one has done an incredible number of things in life. It also represents a possibility for expanding human life, the realm of our existence. It's important to me in many ways and fashions and I don't think you truly understand or care what it truly is, because I mostly see you demeaning, calling it frivolous, a pyseudo-science, and you have tagged, God, it must have been a list of 50 gerontology articles or more, for deletion. You got overriden in 9 out of ten of them, so now we get into a debate about lists that will be far to long and as I said earlier, unwieldy? Not that his article isn't crap, the small group here apparently has no ability to write meaningful, interesting articles on the lives of these people. The few times I have gotten information, which they have but I don't, I have written a good 1 and 1/2 page article and have asked them to try to follow suit, but no improve is ever made. For this little poorly written stub that contains no useful or interesting information, it fits in a list to be put off into some godforsaken corner until it's eventually, hopefully, improved, *Merge.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Small Comment You mistakenly called Robert Young a gerontologist, and Bart Versieck is not indefinitely blocked. Neal (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete. Non notable as per WP:BIO. - Gallo glass  14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge : Agree with --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs merge into List of American supercentenarians.. Shoessss |  Chat  15:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment – as a comment to Myrtle Jones article above, I would say merge if there was an article for List of Australian supercenterians. Shoessss | Chat  15:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If age was an indicator of notability then all newborns would get articles as they were the youngest person on the planet when they were born -- Web H amster  16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I kind of find that arrogant. Being born is nothing rare, it happens three times every second, but only one out of every 20-50 million people will live to be that old. It shows a very narrow minded view and a lack of understanding on the issue.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can find it however you like. It does not show a lack of understanding of the issue, it shows that sometimes exaggerations are required to make a point. Until WP notability guidelines are altered to cover this subject the fact remains that age in itself is not a criterion for notability. In the meantime I suggest you shove your accusations of arrogance and ignorance somewhere the sun don't shine. -- Web H amster  14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Right, I said being the oldest person in the world is as notable as being the tallest person in the world. Which means being the 2nd tallest person in the world is as notable as being the 2nd shortest person in the world. But this does not cover being the youngest person in the world. Or in other words - age isn't an indicator of notability, but extreme age is, nd frankly, that does not include young people. Neal (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * And where, exactly, does WP:BIO or WP:N state that? Sounds to me like you are making up the rules as you go along. So where does it say young people aren't included? For that matter where does it say extreme old age is included? -- Web H amster  14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Sole source seems to be one article in a local newspaper, which I do not believe is sufficient coverage. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But I, and most contributors on this issue strongly disagree with shoving all the articles onto a big list, were the few long ones are turned into stubs, and all are made meaningless and uninformative, and then on top of everything else, we end up with a big gigantic list that the few people who read this want to bother sorting through or scrolling through, and not serving our intention to inform and record our information in these areas. Not to mention I see this as just a way to back at the field after losing almost all of the delete debates, (think return of BHG III). If you can't delete them, put em in a big list where they're a pain to read and all individuality is lost. What's the difference. Though I'm not against merging poorly written stubs, why not just let most be?--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Robert, just read WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Robert I don't think you can make a statement like "I, and most contributors on this issue strongly disagree" when most of these debates have been contentious at the minimum. Cheers, CP 05:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Robert Actually, list of supercentenarians is a method to help save stubs. For example, when an oldest person in the world has her own article, while she is mention on a list, it adds "see also: main article." Followed by a summary paragraph. This means that the rest of supercentenarians that are just oldest man/woman in country, that are just factoids, with a name, date of birth, date of death, lived, etc. Can happily live in a list. Because all they have is a paragraph written on them. What would you rather have: a paragraph article on every supercentenarian, which could mean adding hundreds of pages to watch, or having them listed in a more rational fashion? Now then you go, well suppose they get more trivial information, then I go, well if it gets trivial to the point they can earn their own article. But otherwise stubs and factoids forever remain stubs and factoids. Neal (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Keep For there's a 107th birthday video of him on YouTube, as well as other 'official' videos found in other sites in his 110th birthday interview. Title holder for being the oldest man in U.S.A. and oldest black man in the world. Neal (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Reply Youtube is not a reliable source, and the fact of being the oldest is something which can be recorded in a list, but does not establish notability; WP:BIO requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, and in this case no such coverage has been found. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I said YouTube was a reliable source that would be something else. Neal (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep The top 10 oldest men and women in the world consistently had articles for themselves so if the others are notable this one is too. Canjth (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BIO, subjects have articles for themselves if they have enough substantive coverage in reliable source to allow a decent article to be written and to conform that they were genuinely regarded as notable by those who create reliable sources. Some of the other very old people do fall into that category, and some of them have rather good articles, but George Francis doesn't fall into that category. If more substantive sources are found in the future and notability is this established per WP:BIO, then he could of course be unmerged from List of American supercentenarians ... but right now, there is no evidence that those sources exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. As per users "Robert Waalk", "NealIRC" and "Canjth". Extremely sexy (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (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.