Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Andersson


 * 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. Deor (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Jon Andersson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"a claimed unverified Swedish supercentenarian ... a longevity claimant only, and not officially validated by any international authority." One source, in Swedish, dead link. EEng (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    10:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    10:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete . Someone claimed that someone had lived 147 years, but it is unverified in any way. The one page linked from the article, in Swedish, yields an error message in Swedish, which google translate renders as "The page you requested could not be found. The error may be because you entered the wrong address in the browser, the page is deleted or avpublicerats. It may be that we have a temporary disruption. Go back to home." So it failsWP:BIO,  WP:V, and WP:RS. Edison (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no lack of sources regarding Anderssons claim (or rather, perhaps, the claim made by the local parish priest at the time of Andersson's death) of having lived for 147 years - though, of course, this claim is no longer accepted as realistic. For example Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB), the Swedish government agency responsible for producing official statistics, mentions the story about Andersson here. And here is an article in Sweden's largest morning paper about Andersson, also depicting a commermorative sign placed at the cemetery where Andersson rests. In the 1833 book Statistik öfver Sverige (Statistics about Sweden) Anderssons 147 years were however still considered a fact as can be seen in a footnote on page 74. /FredrikT (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:Note that there is still nothing on the page but a dead link. It is a discredited claim at best. Is it a "notable discredited claim?"Anything but a footnote or a passing reference, insufficient to satisfy notability for a biography? Edison (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can verify there are multiple, substantive modern (and therefore reliable) sources commenting on this obviously spurious claim, as a spurious claim, that would establish notability. A lot of old miscellaneous folklore can't be used on its own -- that would be SYNTH/OR. EEng (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Numerous passing references do not establish notability. Is there more than that? Edison (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well. I did present three examples of sources were Andersson is mentioned - two of them very modern and one of them a government agency... But here are a few more: a) Andersson mentioned in a column on aging in another major Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, b) A statistical leaflet issued by a Swedish municipality, c) a report from a visit by a local historical society to the graveyard where Andersson rests, and d) discussions about Andersson and other long-livers in Swedish web forums devoted to genealogy and history. And as for further older references (when Andersson's old age was still considered a fact) here's a textbook from 1912 on natural sciences written by university professor Nils Johan Berlin, an 1831 book about the province of Östergötland and an 1886 Swedish newspaper article (far left column). /FredrikT (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of notability Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a brief mention here, but I don't see enough here to justify retention. I am more than willing to reconsider if appropriate sources are identified. Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete He's a claimant to a mythical longevity "title" but the claim is disputed. No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Only one source cited for anything on the page and it's impossible to figure out which fact, if any, the reference purports to confirm. WP:GNG. WP:SIGCOV. This is a close call only in the same sense that betting on the continued influence of gravity on earthlings for the next couple of days is a close call. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the type of coverage that satisfies WP:N can be demonstrated. Canadian   Paul  23:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - In the absence of verification by reliable sources per WP:V and significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, this subject has no business being included as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. I believe we have a list for unsubstantiated age claims if reliable sources for the claim can be produced.  I don't read Swedish, but perhaps FrederikT's links above are sufficient for inclusion on the list of unsubstantiated age claims.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Too few sources. 930310 (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Are you referring to the single source in the present article or all the ones I have listed above in this discussion? /FredrikT (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (and a plea for Keep) I have now totally rewritten the article, putting Andersson more into a historical perspective and adding several of the sources listed above as well as some other. Please have a renewed look at it! /FredrikT (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete A subject, which is the focus of an unverifiable claim of extreme longevity, but would be considered notable as a result of the claim being dismissed is a very odd way to go for notability. Blackmane (talk) 12:56, 29 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.