Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Pereira


 * 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The result was Speedy keep, nominator withdrew their nomination and only delete vote was withdrawn -- GB fan 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Javier Pereira

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOPAGE concerns really. I'm not sure that someone who was allegedly 160 years old should have a separate page. Neither of the sources here qualify as reliable sources to me and while an obituary would more likely be considered WP:ROUTINE, it was in Time I guess. The talk page states that he was reported in the newspapers in the past so he may pass WP:GNG through that. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There's a stamp in his honor so fraud or not, there's almost certainly SIGCOV of him somewhere, if only in Spanish. EEng (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can live with that I guess. I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And the fanboys say we don't have open minds! EEng (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Nominator is trolling. No sources provided, unless the rumoured sources in Spanish are provided there is no reason to keep this article. 930310 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * One of the reasons that participation by SPAs, such as yourself, in the deletion process is problematic is their unfamiliarity with applicable policy and guidelines, combined with the fact that such familiarity doesn't seem to improve very much with time, because of a typical SPA's ongoing lack of experience outside of their restricted topic area. In the present case, a consensus of Keep doesn't require that appropriate sources be actually produced (though in practice this is usually what happens), but merely that the consensus of editors be that they believe, in good faith, that such sources exist. Because of the language barrier, and the commonness of the subject's name, it may be difficult to locate such sources without specialized expertise, and yet it's reasonable to believe that the subject of a government-issued stamp would be the subject of, at the very least, some official government announcement and likely consequent coverage in the press. And that's enough. EEng (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, if you can't prove that he escaped local coverage by citing reliable sources (which you don't) then there are no valid grounds for keeping articles such as this one. 930310 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. How am I trolling? Why are you voting delete on this article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cmon, Ricky, why do you engage nonsense posts? No one thinks you're trolling. EEng (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (A) I still assume good faith no matter what; (B) for whatever reason, no matter how bizarre the argument, discussions have been closed on that basis and (C) either 930310 is serious here in these discussions or this kind of name-calling is evidence that a topic ban is necessary. So I'm still waiting on a response on how it's trolling and why in all these discussions is this one that should be deleted? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points. So what about it,, what's your evidence that Ricky is, as you say, trolling? EEng (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy. Ricky is voting for the deletion of well sourced articles about people with validated ages (meaning they have reliable age claims) and is voting for keeping articles that have no sources whatsoever and that are about ridiculous age claims that are not possible to attain as of now. And regarding a topic ban, I think you are much more suited for that EEng since you insult the people that the articles are about by statements such as "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal", which you said here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcella_Humphrey. 930310 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are now at least six reliable sources in this version. You do understand that the GRG isn't the only reliable source in the world, correct? You do understand that this is an encyclopedia about more than just "people the GRG considers the world's oldest people" or "people that 930310 considers the world's oldest people", correct? In this case, the article indicates his notability based on numerous sources when he was found, including a number of newspapers, and the fact that there was a national stamp with him. Given the independent WP:GNG notability shown, the nomination was flawed on my part. The question still stands, why do you think this should be deleted? It sounds like you are voting delete solely on the basis that you consider the claim ridiculous, is that true? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there are now several sources proving that he was well-featured in the media I will withdraw my vote. 930310 (talk) 12:19, 16 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.