Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris


 * 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 merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. From a pure headcount point of view, there's a pretty strong consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article. Several of those arguing to keep are either IP's with no editing history, or editors who have been around a while, but have been focused narrowly and exclusively on the topic of oldest people. But, more than all that, none of the people arguing to keep have made any strong policy-based arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Shelby Harris

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think the consensus has been clear that someone who was the oldest person in the state of Illinois and third-oldest male is not sufficiently notable absent other WP:GNG information. Here, Harris is claimed to have been the oldest person in the state of Illinois (although this article puts him at oldest in US). Of the three sources, two are based on him getting his hometown key to the city and having his own day which is borderline significant while the third article is more like a WP:ROUTINE obituary. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently non-notable, and even if notable, WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. She clearly has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. The oldest person in Illinois history will always be the oldest person in Illinois. 166.170.47.206 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.47.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * (A) "He" and (B) I don't want even to get why that interpretation of the notability standards is comical. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep He was oldest verified man in the United States and one of oldest man in the world. as past of AfD proves, this article is meet Notability. I don't know why you want to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete and redirect I've read all four "sources" carefully. There was some material in the article that appeared in none of the sources, including an assertion that he was "seemingly a lifelong Democrat" because he had voted for JFK and Barack Obama. There's nothing encyclopedic in this article. The subject fails to qualify as notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Three birthday articles (one of which derives its facts from one of the others) and a obit do not amount to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of each other and of the subject. The only possible claim to notability is living a long time and that's just not enough to clear the hurdle for a stand-alone article, per WP:NOPAGE This should become a redirect to the list of oldest Americans. David in DC (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect for others. And the Army article is not an independent source, with Harris being a veteran and it talking about what is essentially a birthday gift from the Army. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep oldest verified man in the United States is meets the guidelines--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which guidelines? Certainly not WP:GNG as I've explained above. This material fits firmly inside WP:NOPAGE It does not call for a stand-alone article. It calls for inclusion in the eleventy-five WOP lists and a redirect to Oldest Americans. David in DC (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. it is impossible to obliterate this article.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete or Redirect/merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. WP:NOPAGE, insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 08:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's not forget. He was not just the oldest American but also the Oldest person from Illinois, the oldest person born in Ayshire, IL, the oldest person to have died in Rocksjire, IL, and even the oldest person to have joined the US army for WWII but failed to have left basic training due to a broken foot. These titles show precisely the kinds of awards that make him notable:l 166.176.56.52 (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.176.56.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep ... in Oldgeezer-opedia. Merge and redirect per 153.151.83.197 here. Being a supercentenarian is not enough in itself, as has been demonstrated over and over again by past Afd verdicts. I'm hoping 166.176.56.52 is being sarcastic (in which case, I love it). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What you are saying does not hold true and is, in fact, an example of ageist-bias; there have been numerous supercentenarian articles over the past couple of weeks/months that have been kept, proving that age in itself can be notable. Present the facts as they are if you wish to hold a discussion that takes every aspect of the matter into account. Fiskje88 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that proves that some supercentenarians can pass WP:GNG on their own. Your argument is an absolute: the world's oldest will be automatically notable but there exists cases where it hasn't. The alternative is "the world's oldest person article is not per se notable based on them being the world's oldest person" which is why there's a debate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't even been reading what I was saying; I was saying that some supercentenarians did pass an AfD nomination, as such pointing out that Clarityfiend had failed to acknowledge that part. Nothing absolute about that. Fiskje88 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have. The comment was "Being a supercentenarian is not enough in itself, as has been demonstrated over and over again by past Afd verdicts." Your point that there exists discussions that were kept doesn't change that comment. Being a player who has played a single Tier 1 international soccer match is itself notable per WP:NFOOTY. It doesn't apply to supercentenarians at the moment as Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) was declined. Make a proposal there if you'd like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Different interpretation of the same thing; you could just as well say that being a supercentenarian is enough in itself, as numerous AfDs have been proven pointless. As always, we look at the matter differently and will have to agree to disagree. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. His notability consists entirely of eligibility for that list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a very elegant complement to the NOPAGE argument -- where a person's notability consists, as you say, entirely of his or her eligibility for a list, and there's nothing but pedestrian things to say about him or her (birth, worked, married, died), it becomes perfectly obvious that the best place to present them in in that list. EEng (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as per reasons above. Not notable. Even if notable, WP:NOPAGE. The only things of interest about this person are date of birth and date of death, meaning they clearly belong as part of a list. ~ RobTalk 18:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand The fact that he worked until the age of 102 is also something that further adds to his notability. And considering that he was the oldest living American man he could be seen as notable. Instead of deleting the effort made by others, why not just improve the article? 930310 (talk) 15:44, 15 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.