Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Johnson (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 delete. Michig (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

George Johnson (supercentenarian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Longevity claim with almost no substance. Once stripped of all the irrelevant filler material about other old people and the verbose circumlocutions about his military service, we're left with a few news outlets mistakenly claiming he was the last WWI vet. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. The article is packed with longevity fancruft like he was the oldest man in California, family lore of claimed famous ancestors, and the standard longevity secret. This article and its content are not needed anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete — While the longevity claims are impressive, those alone are not granted inherited notability. An assessment of sources available lead me to believe this individual falls way short of GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2018 (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.