Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses Hardy


 * 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. John254 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Single-sourced article on the oldest living combat veteran and last African American veteran of World War I. The lone reference is to an AP wire story, and a google search threw up plenty of hits, but so far as I could see the only coverage in reliable sources all relies on the same AP wire story (see e.g., , and ). His assertion of notability is stronger than for other very old people, but the single source makes him marginal wrt WP:BIO. Unless more substabtive coverage can be found in reliable sources, I suggest merger to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So? This bad faith nom is due to the fact that BHG has been targeting substancial supercentenarian articles because there is no stated policy on super-cs in WP:BIO, which she always uses against me. She also has something against one source. This page has one major source, the associated press article, and because the associated press did such a good job, many other newspapers copied off them for his obit. This guy was the last African-American combat vetaran, ono of the last period, and second oldest man in the wordld when he died. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, then to Keely Dorsey, an unimportant college football player, than a famous old guy whosserved overseas. In fact, I'm nominating List of American supercentenarians for deletion. You know who I am, but anyway &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kitia, please do re-read the relevant policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and try to understand why a single-source is undesirable for verification or for notability. For several weeks, I have been going through a few categories which contain lots of stub articles which often rely on original research, and/or which do not meet the notability criteria at WP:BIO; if they meet the tests in WP:BIO, they will be kept, but I have been assessing them all because so many of them fall so far short of the standards required.
 * The absence of any presumption of notability for supercentenarians is not some fiendish plot aimed at you, it is just means that supercentenarians are assessed by the same rule as for other articles. As to Keeley Dorsey, nominate it for deletion if you want to; but List of American supercentenarians was discussed at AfD only 2 weeks ago, with a result of "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I like that article. It's just, with all the notable super-cs you are nominating for deletion, I think that Dorsey should be the next to go, before them. Sure, I saw one super-c that was merely a factoid and I voted delete, but Moses Hardy and many others are special cases, and should be kept. As for the American list, it is already nominated for deletion again. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - A quick google serach turned up a few non-obit sources on Mr. Hardy. I would suggest that his status as one of the last two veterans of the First World War gives him notability.  The press sure thought so.,   So did the State of Mississippi   —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyBeacon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep For being the last surving African-American World War I soldier, plus miscellaneous other minor records. Neal (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep In this case, while the current amount of referencing is unacceptable, a Google search does turn up what I believe to be sufficient sources that could be used to improve this article. Will try and incorporate them into the article and see what it looks like soon. Cheers, CP 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep several significant claims to notability -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are claims to notability, but the coverage remains too trivial to pass WP:BIO, and still possibly falls foul of WP:NOT. A merger to List of American supercentenarians could be reversed if more substantial coverage is found. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep there is a difference between article like this and some of the others, with claims of only state-wide longevity. Perhaps it miht be wiser to be more slective in nomination. DGG (talk) 04:48, 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.