Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ingram McMorran


 * 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 Keep sources added to article after most contributions have taken place in this debate provide notability. This addresses the concerns raised by those who argued for deletion previously due to the previous lack of independent reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

John Ingram McMorran

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable very old person. I have found only remotely substantial ref to him, which I have added to the article, but two google searches  appear to yield noting else of substance. I suggest a merger to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And here's another criticism for the GRG. They talk about how they got a sample of his blood to study (or some other company doing the research). They could publish this results in a scientific journal. But I haven't seen any updates on their site. He died several years ago... I even asked Robert Young for an update/answer, but still no response. Neal (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Neal, I understand your criticism of GRG, but please can you explain what exactly is your argument for keeping this article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None. :P Neal (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay, I just checked my tables. He was the oldest man in the United States. But that's subjective to passing WP:BIO. Neal (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Since I got a complaint from Robert Young about my complaint, I'll continue as follows. The GRG obit. says: Laboratory Data: A blood sample was drawn last year and sent for analysis to the New England Centenarian Study. Hopefully, DNA SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) of important longevity genes will be studied systematically in the Centenarian population. Okay, his argument was it might be private. If it was private, then the above line probably isn't worth mentioning. Neal (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge: as per BrownHairedGirl. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge&rarr;List of American supercentenarians as suggested by nominator. I have tightened up the three references.  It would appear (until established otherwise) that Mr. McMorran's notability is based solely on his longevity, which makes merging into an article that addresses longevity the best course of action. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and please somebody spend time with BHG and teach her how to perform a decent Google search. I don't know. Maybe I have superhuman Google skills. Here is what I find:  . True he is only known for his long life, but he was interviewed before he died when he became the oldest, and was given extensive coverage on his death. The same argument can be used for any musician that gets a top 10 single. They are known only for their music, or winning a race, or starring in a film, or winning a prize, or discovering a cure, or refusing to sit in the back of the bus. Notability and even greatness can come from doing simple things, at the right time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard, I performed a series of google searches in good faith, and in the nomination I clearly linked to the searches which I had done. If you look at the AfD debates, you will see that this is something something which very few nominators at AfD do, and I added the links precisely to enable an audit of my research. Well done finding more sources, but there is absolutely no call for you indulge in this repeated sniping and allegations of bad faith. Per WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Kindly reserve your sarcasm for the editors who created the article without references rather than for the editor who makes a good faith AfD nomination after trying unsuccessfully to fix problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. As per users "NealIRC" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )". Extremely sexy (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)