Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Coates (longevity claimant)


 * 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 no consensus. Quite an even split of opinion, and another relist doesn't seem likely to change that. Michig (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

William Coates (longevity claimant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another longevity claim about which there is almost no information. This guy was born at some undetermined time, lived, died... and his longevity claim is still very little-reported. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. The experts say he was a fraud and there is very little reporting on him or anything to say about him except brief information on record possibilities if his already disproven age claim was true. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable per WP:GNG. A trivial Google search for "William Coates" Maryland 1889 throws up three further items of substantive coverage on the first page of hits alone: UPI, NBC News and the Washington Post.
 * Those three additional items of substantive coverage in reliable sources, plus the one already cited in he article, are more that sufficient to satisfy GNG. It is disappointing that as with other recent AFD noms by @The Blade of the Northern Lights, the nominator makes no claim to have done any of the required WP:BEFORE research to see if there is more coverage.  That omission in a single AFD could be discounted as an oversight, but the consistency of of this basic failure across multiple AFD nominations looks more like WP:Tendentious editing.
 * The invocation by @Newshunter12 of WP:BIO1E is also misplaced. This topic is notable because of a single attribute, whereas WP:BIO1E is about a single event .  So that arguments should be discounted.
 * Similarly, the apparent falsity of Coates's claim does not remove his notability; it merely changes the ways in which the article is written and categorised. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", so the article correctly notes that his claim was unverified and probably false.
 * That leaves us solely with WP:NOPAGE. Nothing in that guideline recommends deleting an article which satisfies GNG. There is no precedent in any other topic area for the systematic merger of articles on notable people to a list.
 * I am concerned that this is another in a series of XFD nominations prepared at WT:LONGEVITY and pursued as a tag-team by members of that project on the basis of what I can most kindly describe as severe misunderstandings of most of the policies and guidelines which they cite. The members of that project appear to have agreed among themselves that articles on people notable for longevity are inherently and axiomatically "cruft", and that GNG is insufficient.  They have no policy basis for doing so, and appear to have decided that their own overt hostility to the topic should override the editorial judgement of respected major news sources.  That is blatant POV-pushing, and it is just as incompatible with Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV as the inverse view pushed by of the fans of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) that the mere fact of longevity create a bypass around WP:GNG.
 * I have supported the deletion or merger of articles on non-notable supercentenarians, and I will continue to do so .. but this is different. This is part of a systematic campaign to eliminate articles on demonstrably notable claimed or actual supercentenarians, which extends even to WP:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian).  WP:LONGEVITY's cleanup campaign has taken a wrong turn into organised disruption.. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not a hive mind. I'm doing this of my own volition, and I don't (contra-GRG) have an off-wiki fan site where I recruit other people. I don't find the small amount of coverage (3 news articles) this guy received to be significant, so I nominated the article; maybe I'm wrong, maybe not, that's why I didn't just use PROD. And there's no policy algorithm for determining notability of super old people (or people claiming to be super old people), so it's natural not everyone will agree. And, as I said elsewhere, I maybe have one more AfD I'll be starting, so it's hardly an indefinite onslaught. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights, straw man time: I did not suggest or imply that you have an off-wiki fan site to recruit meatpuppets. I did point to the on-wiki tag-teaming, which has been clearly evident at both CFD and AFD.
 * I also pointed to the absence of any WP:BEFORE. I can see only two possibilities here. One is that you didn't didn't do a simple Google search for more sources before bringing this to AFD.  The other is that you did search, but chose not to mention the other sources.  Which is it?
 * It quite true that there is no algorithm for notability of longevity claimants. But that's the norm; most topics have no special notability guideline beyond GNG, and 4 items of substantive coverage is usually enough to establish notability.
 * When you nominated the article, there was only one source. Now, a total of 4 have been identified.  The fact that neither you nor @Newshunter12 modified your stances in any way when the volume of substantive coverage quadrupled is one of the factors which pushes me to the view that WP:LONGEVITY is tag-teaming towards a predefined goal rather than making a sincere attempt to apply notability guidelines.
 * Another factor is the responses at WT:LONGEVITY to WP:LONGEVITY's claim to my objections to that project's assertions that longevity is a single event. You haven't commented there, and are of course not obliged to do so, but it is bizarre to see both respondents so far cling to the view that a personal characteristic with no defined start point is a single "event". -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Brown Haired Girl Your false claims about WP:BIO1E have already been refuted in the conversation you cited, so I'm not going to repeat my comments here. Furthermore, you recently accused me of being canvassed in CfD's, some of which were started by The Blade of the Northern Lights, so they are not wrong in denying having an off-wiki fan site where they recruit editors like me. You are the one causing this kind of talk by claiming a disparate "group" of editors are part of some anti-old people scheme. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12: no, I did not accuse you of being canvassed. I did point out that you are part of a tag-team of editors who repeatedly !vote the same way across a slew of discussions.
 * As to the BIO1E discussion, there is a difference between refutation and rebuttal. You replied to my points there. When I responded with a further critique, you gave up on the substance and went for ad hominem attack.
 * Same on this page. Number of identified sources quadruples since your !vote, but when I ping you about that, instead of reconsidering of your stance it's another hominen. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Brown Haired Girl So you are saying your account was hacked and you did not write: What are you up to? Is this some form of intentional disruption? Or has someone somewhere canvassed you to come to this discussion and vote for something who effects you don't care about? here in a CfD started by The Blade of the Northern Lights? As I said, false claims. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12: no my account was not hacked. But it's a curious coincidence that you have suggested the possibility only 24 hours after the first ever logged attempt to hack it.
 * Anyway, as you can see, I didn't accuse you being canvassed; I asked you a question about the astonishing gap between your disavowal of interest and your many actions, and I followed it with by asking whether either of two v different possible explanations applied.
 * Note that I didn't receive an answer as to why an editor who repeatedly expressed a lack of interest in categories chose to post multiple times in about a dozen CFDs to advocate removal of articles from extant categories whose scope fits those articles. If neither of the possibilities I asked about can be answered yes, then please explain what actually was going on.
 * Back to this AFD. Four times as many sources as when you !voted, yet when asked to comment on that you have chosen to reply twice without addressing that point.  Very odd. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I did not try to hack your account. I've had enough of your personal attacks and other stunts against me, so I have no plan to ever respond to you again on Wikipedia. I have better things to do. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per particularized and convincing defense of this entry by BrownHairedGirl whose production of supporting citations confirms subject's sufficient notability.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The substantial coverage in reliable sources provided by in articles in United Press International, NBC News, and The Washington Post.  The book notes: "William Coates was one such piece of living trivia: at 114 years of age, the Clinton, Maryland man was known around the country as being the oldest living man in the United States. It was an unofficial title he had held for the past several years, as was mentioned in the June 2, 1999 edition of the Washington Post [three-paragraph quote from the Washington Post] Sadly, Coates passed away in February 2004. A mention of his death was made in a February 25 Associated Press story disseminated by hundreds of media outlets: [five-paragraph quote from the Associated Press]  The last sentence should have set off some sort of alarm bells for both reporters and news consumers. While it was not uncommon for those in the 1800s to not have a birth certificate, it certainly was a stretch to consider someone to be the country's eldest citizen in absence of one. By early March, it was revealed that a copy of a 1930 U.S. Census form showed that Coates was listed as being eighteen years old, making him 92, not 114, at the time of his death. Yet even then, some who knew Coates remained firm in their beliefs, as shown in the March 2, 2004 edition of the Maryland Gazette: [one-paragraph quote from the Gazette]  It was noted in some articles that none of Coates' relatives maintained that he was 114 years old, either. [analysis about newspapers and newscasts running the story without independent verification]"</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow William Coates to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per above; meets GNG Catrìona (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete when the main source is an article disputing the underlying claims I see nothing at all to suggest notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no reason to have articles on every unfounded claim of longevity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per BrownHairedGirl. Regarding the point raised about the longevity claim being likely false - this adds to notability, it doesn't detract from it. If someone is reported as particularly long-lived in reliable sources and then is exposed as a fraud and this is reported in reliable sources that clearly adds to their notability because not only were they known for being long-lived but they were also known for pulling a fast-one on everyone. If you can't show they were a fraud in reliable sources then at least write the piece so as not to state their longevity as accepted fact. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The problem with the so-called Longevity project's program to delete supercentenarians is that they appear to make no serious effort to determine notability guidelines for such articles. I have suggested in other AfDs that a useful guideline could be whether the subject received significant coverage during their lifetime, whether that is coverage specifically for reaching extreme old age, or for other reasons. In this case, I do not find SIGCOV before the subject's death, unlike other supercentenarians like Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian), Edna Parker, Jack Lockett, Bernice Madigan, and others who were deleted despite having SIGCOV (eg James Sisnett, Carl Berner, Edelgard Huber von Gersdorff, Vi Robbins, etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete What people claim passes WP:GNG is just WP:BLP1E here. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E does not apply to a man who neither is living nor has recently died. As explained extensively by here, WP:BIO1E does not apply either. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: Here are two more articles from The Washington Post:<ol> <li> The article notes: "When William Coates died on Feb. 24 at the Southern Maryland Hospital Center, the story made the front page of the Metro section the next day because, the story said, at age 114, he 'was believed to be America's oldest man.' The story, which was relatively brief, said Coates did not have a birth certificate, which would not have been uncommon for African Americans of his generation. But it quoted the director of a Maryland senior center who had done extensive research on county centenarians as saying Coates was born June 2, 1889. The Post had mentioned Coates before in the news section when he was honored at a 1999 event called the Celebration of Centenarians sponsored by Prince George's County and two other local agencies, and in three or four other stories over the past five years. He was also mentioned in 2002 by columnist Courtland Milloy, who added that other authorities were working to authenticate his age. After his death, The Post set out to write a fuller story. On March 2, a front-page Metro story reported that 'in a final twist to a long life that is largely shrouded in questions, U.S. Census records indicate that Coates -- who has been celebrated for his supposed advanced age in news stories and public proclamations -- was no older than 92 when he died.' This was a much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort, including references to earlier Post stories giving his age as 110 at the time. It pointed out that none of Coates's relatives had claimed he was 114 but said, rather, that they knew few details of his life. That second story appeared on the day Coates's relatives were attending his funeral at a Northeast Washington church."</li> <li> This is per Michael Getler, the "much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort". </li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Keep - there's more than enough here to satisfy the GNG. schetm (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, I must admit I am weary of independent articles for unverified claims where the person was never official considered the oldest. However this person whether correctly or not at one time was believed to be the oldest man in America. This is not a trivial accomplishment. He has received significant coverage doing so. Sources provided by Cunard and BHG shows this article can be expanded beyond a stub. I believe WP:NOPAGE does not apply in this case. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 09:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (Weak) delete While accepting this is a marginal case and thanking BrownHairedGirl for her work, I feel this does come under WP:BLP1E. The one event is the misunderstanding as to what his age was at his death. That's the only reason he has any fame. The coverage offered in support of a GNG argument is all around that. What I don't see is any significant coverage of this person beyond that error. Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.