Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustav Gerneth


 * 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. Based on the discussion it seems like the question is whether meeting WP:GNG here (the arguments that GNG is met seem reasonable, even if some keep arguments aren't giving any details about why they think GNG is met) is enough to justify a standalone page on them - as that guideline itself notes it's merely a presumption of notability, and as some delete arguments have pointed out per WP:NOPAGE sometimes even notable topics are better covered in a different form than a standalone article. I did discount the "being the oldest x makes you notable" claims as they are not based on any guideline or policy (as was pointed out during the discussion), and that also implies that "not fully confirmed" isn't a particularly strong counterargument either. That leaves the merger arguments - that the topic is already covered in a list article and that much of what is currently in the article isn't enough to justify an article but enough that it should be kept somewhere and in light of the WP:NOPAGE claims here cited it'd be a valid consideration beyond mere keep or mere delete. Two people are explicitly advocating a merger and two people (the nominator and less certainly Randykitty) appear to support that the information be preserved somewhere. That said, two people appear to oppose a merge (schetm and less certainly Reyk). My sense is that while there is no consensus on a plain deletion (the arguments are kind of weak on either side), but not enough support for a merger to deem it a consensus. So no consensus, but a dedicated merger discussion with the List of German supercentenarians article is probably warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Gustav Gerneth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page fails WP:NOPAGE. There is just the standard longevity fluff: his age, got married, had kids, worked, his longevity secret and age feats. There are also multiple instances of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH used to bulk up the article. When all of this is removed, all that's left is info that fits nicely in list entries at List of German supercentenarians and elsewhere. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete- On one hand, I would expect the world's oldest living man to be notable. But the sourcing seems remarkably sparse for that, consisting mostly of the same "he likes butter" and "he has a steep staircase" fluff that every 110+ person gets. I'd recommend merging, but he's covered already in sufficient detail in other articles. What tips me over the edge to recommend delete is that List_of_German_supercentenarians says his age has not been fully confirmed. Reyk YO! 10:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> To be clear, the arbiter on Wikipedia of who the worlds oldest living man is is Guinness World Records and they have made no move (as of yet) to name this man as the WOLM. The claims that he is are unfounded conjecture. There is also longstanding precedent that being the "oldest x" is not a valid claim to notability. And yes, he has not been validated by the GRG either. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Gerneth is the oldest living man on earth wich makes him noteworthy. The facts in the article are by no means irrelevant or trivial! Metron (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses Guinness World Records to decide who the oldest man and woman on earth are and they have not named Gerneth as either and it is longstanding precedent that being the "oldest x" is not a grant of notability. If steep stairs and butter aren't trivial, then what is? Your keep vote is based on nothing valid. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Being the "oldest x" is not a valid claim for notability and the factoids in the article are beyond trivial. --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the "oldest x" is not a valid claim for notability, but having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic is. The subject does, so the article should be kept. schetm (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: that is incorrect. Notability is a prerequisite for a standalone page, but it is not sufficient. As Wp:NOPAGE says: "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." If all you can get from your reliable sources are trivial factoids (steep stairs, butter), then obviously you have nothing of encyclopedic interest to write about and including the few interesting facts (birth date and such) into a list may be more appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing I said was incorrect. He is unquestionably notable per the GNG, so then NOPAGE does comes into consideration, and I would argue that a standalone page provides needed context. One may not like the stuff about butter or stairs, but it's perfectly reasonable info to be incorporated into a biographical article as none of the info falls under WP:NOT. Also, no need to make this personal. They're not my reliable sources. schetm (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was and is incorrect to say that having significant coverage in multiple independent sources is enough for notability and that therefore the article should be kept. And I really was not being personal, "you" and "your sources" is using "you" in the general sense, as in the more ponderous phrasing "If all one can get from ones reliable sources". Sorry for the confusion. The steep stairs and butter are factoids for which the word "trivial" is too good. There's simply nothing of interest to write here. We're an encyclopedia, not Bild. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "What policy (or guideline) does (the "factoids") violate or meet, and how?" Just saying "it doesn't belong" just isn't good enough. What part of WP:NOT does the info run afoul of? schetm (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the sources said that the subject regularly picks his nose and likes to fart, would you also insist on including that? Or suppose that we have an RS that states that Einstein liked two lumps of sugar in his morning tea, should we include that in his biography? --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To your first question, the answer is no, due to BLP concerns. To the second, if RS said that Einstein's love of two lumps of sugar played a role in his scientific brilliance, then yes, it should be included. Again, what specific policy does the inclusion of the factoids violate? schetm (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How about Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? And like Einstein's sugar lumos, is there any evidence that the steep stairs and the butter had anything to do with this person's longevity? --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Where the man lives is not indiscriminate information. Now, to the Einstein question, the man says that his diet influences his longevity, and RS has picked up on it. As such, it's analogous to Einstein's brilliance being derived from sugar in tea, and is therefore not indiscriminate. The steep stairs and red brick, however, is, which I why I've removed it. schetm (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to a mini-bio in List of German supercentenarians. There is well enough coverage in diverse sources to establish notability, but not really enough meat for a standalone article, per WP:NOPAGE. The list is a perfect target for this person, as readers can get informed about similar cases there. Parts of the text documenting the "longevity horserace" can then be omitted. — JFG talk 18:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand the delete rationale, and until officially declared by Guinness World Records (or equivalent), this article may be WP:TOOSOON. Nonetheless, the German Wiki considers the article notable enough, and I think readers can benefit from an EnWiki entry. I've added some new sources to the article hoping to help. Merge changing my vote to merge based on the Guinness World Records page confirming Kane Tanaka as the current verified oldest living person. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria Even if he was the WOLM, there is no grant of notability by being "the oldest x". WP:TOOSOON is a valid delete rational, as is WP:NOPAGE. A huge number of articles just like this one were deleted in the past year on WP:NOPAGE or similar grounds. When you strip away the fanfluff info that he got married, had kids, worked, and the standard longevity secret question, all that's left is his name, birthdate, age, nationality, and eventually his death date, which all fit snuggly in a list entry, which he already has in six different articles. There's nothing substansive to keep or merge. There are fan websites where people can read about his steep stairs and butter. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But should we really be stripping away such basic info such as where he lives, what he did, and the like, assuming it's sourced? We wouldn't think of doing that for other individuals. schetm (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As for me, this article passes the notability criteria.--Darwinek (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes are routinely ignored by closing admins. --Randykitty (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:Basic. 172.56.28.50 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC) — 172.56.28.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.