Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Parks (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnson Parks
Nonnotable man. RightGot (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - As a non-notable supercentenarian. Two GRG tables and a one sentence mention in someone else's obituary does not make someone notable. Also given that these sources strain to pad the article with longevity trivia (oldest for 85 days, third oldest black man, etc) means that even if he was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE would almost certainly apply. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As being insubstantially different from the version that was deleted previously over a decade ago. There are currently three sources, two of which are trivial mentions, and the third of which is an obituary - none of these sources establish the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N's requirement of multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent, third-party, reliable sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit was already included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia when this was first deleted 10+ years ago. Canadian   Paul  14:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV and GNG. Disputed Speedy delete is borderline disruption. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 20:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. The only sources are tables and another man's obituary, so I don't feel like he should have a stand alone article, but this information is notable enough to be included in a lisr of American supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, there have been repeated discussions regarding the reliability of GRG. While sources are light regarding this person, he had title of oldest man for 85 days, he is the second oldest man of African descent, but above all he is currently listed as #10 in oldest man ever lived. Being in the top ten of such as category appears to be notable. Valoem talk contrib 08:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment On the contrary, being in the top ten is NOT a basis for notability. Notability is based on the depth and breadth of coverage, something this article clearly lacks. And as for the GRG there have been numerous Afds which have decided that the GRG alone is NOT the basis for claiming notability. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 01:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep– I get the arguments of the "delete" people as there isn't a lot of info about his life in the article, but ultimately I think that being the oldest living man should be enough for notability. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 15:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As he is not living person, he isn't one of top 10 oldest man ever permanently, because there are possible that other living man surppasses Parks' age. And so far, the volume of the article are very poor. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Argument that living past a certain age is per se notable is misguided. There's no policy like that nor should there be. The question must be "Is there significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources?" Here, the answer to that baseline question is no. David in DC (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Note - Step 3 of nominating for deletion was missed. This article was never added to the AFD main page for discussion until today. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2018 (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.