Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wiggins (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. The primary rationales for deletion were not meeting the general notability guideline due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources, the policy of verifiability, and claims of notability relying upon original research. The primary rationales for keep were based on verification of a single source and statement of personal opinion. Even taking the cited source into account, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor WP:MEMORIAL of people who, at one point in the past, just so happened to live a little longer than people before them (but did nothing else remarkable and weren't the subject of stuff saying they were/are remarkable), as the length of that list would be arbitrarily huge. slakr \ talk / 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

James Wiggins (supercentenarian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable supercentenarian. No references since July 2012. Anything that can be salvaged in available in other longevity articles. PROD declinedby User:Necrothesp because: "see Oldest people; most have articles; take to AfD". CommanderLinx (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If he was the world's oldest man (albeit briefly), then this should be enough to keep the article, but I can't find anything to back that up.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom. Lacks any citation. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. This article is OR with all statements synthesized presumably from one source (an uncited GRG list). The claim that most "Oldest people" have articles not only fails WP:OTHERSTUFF but is also misleading, barely half of the "Oldest men" have an article (and I suspect others are similar to this as the creator of this article has created many such articles). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that I didn't deprod because "other stuff exists" but because prodding is only for uncontroversial deletions, as clearly specified in WP:PROD. This is something that is frequently overlooked (or ignored) by editors who prod articles. If there is any chance of the individual being notable, which is suggested by the fact that similar articles do exist, then an article should be taken to AfD rather than prodded. Personally, I'm completely neutral on whether this article is kept or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think the subject's status (world's oldest man) can possibly trump WP:GNG and, by extension, WP:V. Inability to produce sources means that both notability and verifiability are insufficient. GregorB (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - world's oldest man is good enough. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He had the status of world's oldest man for over a year. That's pretty notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you both provide reliable sources to support the article? Others above can't. At this point, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:V. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There was a citation in the article (or maybe it was in a previous or later article in the series of oldest persons, i am not sure how i found my way to it) to http://www.grg.org/Adams/B2.HTM which is a table of oldest persons, a work of the Gerontology Research Group, which has a wikipedia article, and which seems to be a generally accepted source on the world's oldest person.  The table's line on James Wiggins indicates that two verifications for him are "United States (SSA)" (perhaps the Social Security Administration?) and a "Kestenbaum study" (perhaps an academic, published study, but I can't find it easily).  A publications page at GRG lists a number of published tables listing supercentarians published in "Rejuvenation Research", a journal associated with the leader of the GRG.  The GRG's assessments are or were apparently accepted for Guinness World Records, and by the New York Times in this 2007 article about an oldest person's death.  I don't really know how anyone can determine who is the oldest person alive, for certain, but it does seem reasonable that this group apparently does keep track of very old persons and can say whether someone is the oldest known to them, documented sufficiently for them to accept.  So I think the James Wiggins wikipedia article claim should be clarified to say he was the oldest person alive that was known and documented sufficiently for that group, which does seem to be an authority.  Anyhow, it seems there is authoritative-type sourcing available, meeting the requirement of several editors commenting above. -- do  ncr  am  15:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete He is so non-notable that the article does not even attempt to tell us anything about his life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The state of the article is not evidence for (or against) notability, nor is it a reason to delete; AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:57, 23 February 2014 (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.