Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Parks


 * 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. Core desat 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnson Parks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced stub article on a very old person, tagged as unreferenced since September. I have found no substantive coverage (though I don't guarantee that my search was exhaustive). He is listed in Oldest people and in List of the oldest people, which is quite sufficient for this factoid unless anyone finds substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I also searched and could only find either results that returned a 404 or were likely sourced from Wikipedia (Chat Forums etc).Poeloq (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I added a reference if that's all that was required? and GRG seems to be a reliable source?  Sting_au   Talk  11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a reference to a list which support the fact of Parks's age, but the mimimum notability test of WP:BIO is substantial coverage in reliable sources. Lists entries are not substantial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There are still too few references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliyeah (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 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. GRG, for reasons that have been hashed over excruciatingly for the last few months, is not a reliable enough source. Cheers, CP 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (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.