Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Savin


 * 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. Nominator's concerns about sourcing appeared have been addressed per improvements in the article. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Savin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article about a man who supposedly lived to 126 is sourceable only to a single unreliable primary source. Of the four references currently in the article, the first does not mention the subject, the second is a link to a bunch of forum posts, and the third and fourth are actually the same: a translation of an account of a conversation a Russian writer, Voyensky, had with Mr. Savin.

I have searched for more sources, but all I have been able to find is a bunch of stuff about different people named Nicolas Savin, and some passing mentions that all seem to treat the Voyensky account as gospel. I believe these sources, to say nothing of the Voyensky account, fail our reliability requirements because they all accept the astonishing claim of Savin's extreme old age without question. This very dubious article should be deleted because it is not sufficiently sourceable to reliable, secondary sources. Reyk YO!  07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being known as the "last survivor of the French Revolutionary Wars of 1792-1802 and the last French officer of the Napoleonic Wars", even if not substantiated, is most certainly notable as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Necrothesp. Any last survivor of a war belongs on Wikipedia. 1779Days (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm not entirely convinced but there seems to be enough references now to make an argument to delete on the basis of a lack of WP:RS untenable. Anotherclown (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Someone who lived to 126 during any era can be expected to have received substantial coverage. That this coverage isn't available indicates that either a) this is a hoax or b) this person isn't notable. The two keep votes do no appear to be based in any policy given the problems with the sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I still think that this is a hoax, but this seems to be a hoax from the 1800s and is probably notable. The extraordinary lifespan isn't at all credible for this era. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails verifiability. He does not appear to even be mentioned in the first reference, and the others are a blog which does not appear to satisfy WP:V. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, so also fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A number of references have since been added. The current first reference is Nicolas Savin, dernier vétéran de la grande armée: sa vie -sa mort, 1768-1894  for confirmation of what the books is about, see the WorldCat link, .(reprinted from a major magazine of the times,  reinforcing that it had significant coverage). That pretty much dismisses the possibility of a hoax, or people's guesses  whether there would be significant coverage.    DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep with appreciation of the improvements since nomination, turning a stub into a decently sourced and encyclopedic article to serve our readers. Improvements since the last delete !vote above show this topic as being NOT a hoax, and indeed covered in multiple independent sources. Historical notability IS notability, and exactly what this encyclopedia is all about.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:33, 16 August 2011 (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.