Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Lucas


 * 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Lucas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Some serious WP:BLP issues here. WP:N requires non-trivial mentions in independent, third-party, reliable sources in order to establish notability, and you won't find that for Stanley Lucas because, according to members of the Gerontology Research Group, he has tried to remain anonymous. First, let's look at the sources:


 * 1) Mentioned in an article about an elderly gentleman to show that someone is older than said gentleman – Trivial
 * 2) Mention that he's the oldest – Again, trivial.
 * 3) One sentence about how he played lawn bowls at the age of 100 – Once more, trivial
 * 4) "Stanley is 108 years young". Cornwall Guardian. 23 January 2008. – Unlike the other ones this, presumably, covers him, although to what depth I can't tell. One local source on an individual, however, does not in any way confer notability.

Only one of these sources actually covers the subject of this article; the other three are just a collection of the times his name has been mentioned over the past five years. Stanley Lucas has not tried to gain attention in the press and has does nothing of note except live longer than any other man in Britain. As a marginally (if at all) notable individual, there's no need for him to have his own article as WP:BLP tells us to respect the privacy of semi-notable figures, and even if we were to completely disregard WP:BLP, there's still not enough sourcing to meet the threshold anyways Cheers, CP 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CP, you have written that "according to members of the Gerontology Research Group he has tried to remain anonymous". Could you please elaborate on this, preferably by providing some links to verifiable sources to substantiate this information? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From the GRG message board, which I have argued against being a reliable source, but which is the only place he has been discussed has this message. For those who do not wish to sign up, it says the following:


 * I was finally able to talk to his daughter and get enough information to validate his age. Mr Lucas is a quiet man, and as yet doesn't want any media attention. According to his daughter he is in rather good health, and joined the rest of the family in going out for a Sunday meal this week! She is also happy for his name to go on Table E should he reach 110. He was born on the 15th January 1900 and is also currently the UK's 14th oldest person.'

Cheers, CP 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * thats not him requesting anonomity, not having media attention doesnt make someone anonymous, anonymous just means no info is given, info has been given about him however, so no, hes not anonymous, even if he was, that wouldnt take away from his notability. Longevitydude (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep these sources are good enough, whats wrong with them, he is a supercentenarian, he reached 110 and hes the oldest man in the UK, how is he not notable? Longevitydude (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * hes also the oldest man in Europe, that extremely notable, not only the oldest of a country but also the oldest of a continent. Longevitydude (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep Being the oldest man in Europe is highly notable. If he is anonymous, then why was there a lengthy and detailed article about him in a reliable publication? References do not necessarily have to come from online sources, and it's certainly no ground for a deletion of an article. "One local source on an individual, however, does not in any way confer notability." - You might want to check WP:N before re-writing the rule book. It states that "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the Cornish Guardian story, the Birmingham Post published a 900+ word interview with him in December 2004, with photographs. These two articles provide ample biographical information, and suggest that he hasn't minded people writing about him. EALacey (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If stanley lucas was anonymous we would know nothing about him, and there would be no sources about him, the fact that there is coverage about him shows that hes not anonymous. Longevitydude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

a report on his 110th birthday, with a picture http://www.bude-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=1880&headline=Celebrations%20in%20Bude%20as%20Stanley%20reaches%20110

does this look anonymous to you, could this happen if he was not getting media attention? Longevitydude (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If he actively sought deletion, we might have an issue. But his claim seems highly notable and covered by the media Vartanza (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment that was quoted above was made (in a non-public forum) at a time when we were not sure if anything about Stanley had been in the media previously. The family were initially cautious about giving out any details so we moved slowly in accordance with this. Since that time a media story has appeared in the Bude and Stratton Post and he received many visitors over the past week. He never actively sought anonymity. Stanley is the oldest man in the UK, the oldest man in Europe and the third oldest known man in the world. Notable? I don't know - I don't have a detailed knowledge of your notability guidelines. --Mattpagezk (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Male supercentenarians are still quite rare. There are far fewer male supercentenarians than soccer players. Ryoung 122 21:27, 24 January 2010 (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.