Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts

Wow. Nice job
Can we all take a moment to stop arguing and admire the insightful and even-handed summary that starts with this edit. It does the very thing that will, in the end, determine the fate of wikipedia. It not only meets the expectations of WP:AGF. It surpasses them with WP:DGF. Bravo. David in DC (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My sympathy
...for which ever admin ends up trying to close this train wreck of an AfD :( Thparkth (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the result should be no consensus, because I don't imagine how anyone could make a consensus out of this afd. Longevitydude (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple, it's done by removing the SPA and COI comments. I asked you a question about COI in the Russian AFD, please answer in full. JJB 19:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ill try, but youll have to forgive me if I don't answer exactly the way you want me to. Longevitydude (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

off-topic

 * Did you remove too many with this edit? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, thats not my edit, are you really trying to blame this on me, im sure maybe the editor did that by accident. Longevitydude (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't replying to you. Perhaps if you had used bullets correctly. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * nope, that was your (now-outdated) 'summary', which I removed. Duplicate votes surely, or why was it collapsed? Sumbuddi (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't collapse it. You'll need to verify that everything you removed is truly a duplicate. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Next time, probably better not to do that on the AFD page itself, because it actually ended up exarcebating the mess and confusion.Sumbuddi (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Summarization of comments without nonsense

 * Below is the summary that Timneu22 created, David in DC praised, I collapsed, Sumbuddi deleted, I moved to talk, and Enric Naval collapsed again, consisting of relevant comments through 14:00, 7 Nov: JJB 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

When you take out all the off-topic remarks and poor accusations from both sides, the AfD looks like this: &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the now collapsed summary deserves praise. Although he's usually an obstreporous dolt, I find that, this time, I agree with this guy. David in DC (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination: He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country. Fails WP:GNG. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Alice]] is a claim to be a centenarian.)
 * Delete couldn't find anything of use in google news. Secret account 16:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep hes a supercentenarian, and hes been the oldest man in the country for years, and if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country. Longevitydude (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The logic for inclusion is faulty.  Someday--perhaps very soon--this man will die.  He will then no longer be the oldest person within a given geographical area.  What will be the justification for the article THEN?  The even less notable "He USED to be the oldest person within a given geographical area"?  Or "Here lie the bones of a guy who was briefly non-notable for being the oldest person in a geographical area"?  He is not sufficiently notable now, and the moment he dies he becomes completely non-notable.  Let's not wait till then.  Let's delete it now, because we're only going to have to delete it later.  True notability is not something that expires with death. Qworty (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe there's no policy or guideline that decrees that being the oldest man in (or perhaps on) a continent is, per se, notable. I've occasionally believed six impossible things before breakfast, so I could be wrong. If I am, please show me where to look. (Interesting, but probably not dispositive, is the fact that one of the "impossible things" in the White Queen's oration to [[Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)|


 * Commment: I know we've had lots of AfDs on supercentenarians before, as we have tons of articles on them, so the nomination by itself doesn't tell me why we should delete this one over any other one. E.g., Articles for deletion/Martha Graham (supercentenarian).  If not kept, the content needs to be merged into an article such as List of American supercentenarians, as was done in the case of Articles for deletion/Thomas Nelson (supercentenarian).  In this case it would be List of European supercentenarians--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Belgian supercentenarians. He's gotten written up in newspapers, but all they really say is, other than him being the oldest European man, that he's fairly healthy, and has some children and grandchildren. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because he just recently became a supercentenarian. He isn't like Frederica Sagor Maas, who, now validated, has been recognized by other sources rather than just her nearby/local newspaper. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  because male supercentenarians are already very rare Petervermaelen 18:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The nom's very much in error. The text of the GNG is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  Supercentenarians provoke a LOT of articles and news stories about them.  Want to bet I can't find at least several articles in reliable sources about him?  He's only the fifth living male supercentenarian in the world.  Heck, he only has to make it a few more months to crack the top 100 of the oldest verified men in recorded history.  That's not notable?   RGTraynor  18:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: RGTraynor has a good point about WP:GNG, in his second sentence above. However, I think it's answered in the last bullet of that policy: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.David in DC (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge The article has the potential to meet Wikipedia standards if reliable sources are used - they do exist. As it stands, the article is very poor. I think nominating the article for deletion a mere 20 minutes after its creation has not helped the matter. If the article isn't improved, then I would have to say redirect to List of Belgian supercentenarians until the article meets Wikipedia standards. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is the article was never given a chance to be improved, if supercentenarians are not notable, they why do so many people think so, who is anyone to tell us what we should consider notable, all we do is ask others to respect our views on what we consider notable, we don't make afds on what you consider notable, so please don't do it to us. Longevitydude (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, im calm now, but seriously, five refs, I know there have been more in the past that just cant be found, but still, thats a reasonable amount, but learn to have respect for other peoples opinions of notability, you dont see the GRG making afds for stuff that you think is notable that they dont care about, is a little consideration too much to ask? Longevitydude (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge per SimaeseTurtle. It looks like the general notability guideline is met, unless someone can explain how WP:BASIC indicates it does not meet notability. --Bsherr (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG creates a presumption. The final bullet in WP:GNG makes the presumption rebuttable. It gives exactly the reason for rebuting the presumption that this article presents. Please see this earlier comment and review the interplay the last bullet of WP:GNG describes between the presumption and WP:NOT. David in DC (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete or redirect if there ever was one. The assumption of WP:WOP is that having turned 110 and held a regional title, which is conferred basically by Yahoo WOP, which contains a vast membership overlap with WP:WOP, makes one notable. No, it makes one notable for line-item inclusion in lists. Goossenaerts is already in five WP lists, with which a "bio" article (what bio?) would be wholly redundant (there is nothing to merge!). My basic view is that a supercentenarian becomes article-notable (not at age 110 but) when there is enough interest in something other about her or him than just being 110 (otherwise, via WP:BLP1E, they should be redirected to a base list, i.e., list of living supercentenarians). There are many more problems that do not have time or place for discussion now, but some of them appear at WP:FTN, WP:COIN, and Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths.
 * Delete - Being the oldest person in a country does not guarantee notability. This is one of many trivial entries here that relate to human longevity that ought to get the axe.  It is pure trivia and the obsession of a group of hobbyists, but there is nothing encyclopedic about it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since it seems like common outcomes of these types of articles is to delete, as indicated by the Oldest People talk page, why would this one be different? I'm not talking about WP:OTHERSTUFF here, I'm talking about common outcomes. We really need a policy for this type of article. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 22:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While I fully agree, that's a discussion for another, as yet created, page. Here, we're just called upon to decide if Jan Goossenaerts is notable. Once we're done (or contemporaneously if someone is so moved,) someone can propose an addition to WP:OUTCOMES. This page is about one tree. The forest can and should be considered by a larger part of the community, in a more visible way than a single AfD about the oldest man on (or perhaps in) Europe. David in DC (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Possessing a superlative trait (eg oldest man, tallest human, etc.) is not a concept of notability of itself because that is just a happenstance for that person at the time and place of interest and who else living or dead has been there. This is not to say that this trait cannot lead to other notable facets, which Walter Breuning (mostly) demostrates - his age led him to become notable, but that was, in part, due to living in America as opposed to other areas of the world where media coverage is zero to nil (eg the middle of rural China) but also from having done some somewhat notable aspects during his life. Jan G. here doesn't seem to have any of that reported in secondary sources, so this is just a happenstance.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply being very old does not make one notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E both certainly apply here.  Resolute 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's old.  We got it.  We also dont give a fuck.  Not notable per everyone. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because he has significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources and so meets the WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because there is no "event". Thparkth (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Multiple reliable sources"? Are you looking at the same entry as everyone else?Griswaldo (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article I'm looking at links to coverage in several sources, among them Voice of Russia, RTL, and Sud Presse. Thparkth (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thparkth, please review JJB's earlier explanation of why four of the 5 sources are all mirrirs of one another. In pertinent part, he says: "[O]ne reason these newspapers are so convenient so quickly, yet without translation, is that WP:WOP and GRG are very often primary sources for such articles and know of their placement ahead of time: note "according to gerontologists" in first article and the very name GRG in the next three, each of which refer to "80 supercentenarians" (verified, living); compare list of living supercentenarians, what a coincidence that WP editors and "gerontologists" agree so closely, maybe they are the same people? So the first four articles are all really the same article, only the fifth seems to have some independent material, and the reliance on videos above further demonstrates the GNG failure."David in DC (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the key point is that four different reliable sources have taken the editorial decision to run this story - and that creates a presumption of notability for me. (The fifth source, somewhat confusingly, appears to be a political party.) Thparkth (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable because it is covered in detail in numerous reliable sources and so passes WP:GNG.  The opinions above that extreme age is not notable are expressing a personal opinion rather than following the guideline and so violating core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, as I've said, reasonable editors can differ about whether the presumption set up by the first several bullets of WP:GNG control or whether the final bullet of WP:GNG, setting up the terms for rebutting the presumption, controls. But we're talking about the same guideline. Neither view violates WP:NPOV. David in DC (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that you wish to determine this matter based upon your own POV as to whether extreme age is notable. This is  unacceptable as you are not a reliable source - you are just a random passerby with no special standing.  The point of the guideline is to determine such matters by reference to independent third parties rather than taking a poll of whoever shows up at AFD.  Your position violates multiple policies including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the RS argument here. These sources are virtually mirrors of one another, which another editor has pointed out above.  Also, trivia is published in newspapers in various forms and at various times to make the readers feel all warm and cozy inside but that's not what an encyclopedia does.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and certainly not the society section of one.  I don't see your position as any less of an opinion than that of David.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectable newspapers are commonly used as sources on Wikipedia and are quite satisfactory for establishing notability because their professional status and reputation indicate the independent and reliable nature of the interest in the topic. In this case, they include Gazet van Antwerpen and De Standaard which seem quite adequate for our purposes.  The opinions of individual editors here are quite worthless by comparison and there is not the slightest policy basis for accepting them instead. AFD is not a vote and editors are expected to bring evidence to the discussion, not their personal opinions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good ah point Colonel. I am going to think about re-evaluating my opinion now.  I see the loggic in this, Thank you, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. I see several problems/issues with the "deletionist" arguments.
 * Notability is established by outside sources, not your personal opinion (Carolyn).
 * Some have said that persons cannot be notable for "old age" alone. Yet if we run a Google search on news for "Eugenie Blanchard" we get more than 600 main articles in English, as well as other languages. So, that's a false argument. Instead, the argument should be: "at what point does someone become notable for age"?
 * "Notability is not temporary." This is a poor argument. That is used for incidental, one-cycle news reports. But someone who is the "oldest man" in their nation, they have the title every day. And when they die, they are recorded as the titleholder. That's not temporary.
 * Do we say that, since George Kell won a batting title decades ago, he was notable in 1949 but not now? Also, we have every major league baseball player ever listed as "notable," coverage or not. Ryoung 122 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep- Notability is measured entirely by the sources. Enough reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail enable an article to be written. Now, this guy probably comes in at the low end of the coverage but it's OK in my opinion. That said, three of the sources are nearly identical copies of each other. Reyk  YO!  00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy scrapes the criteria, but scrape it still is. Brendan  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Those that argue that this passes the GNG need to show that significant coverage in secondary sources has been met. There is coverage, and there are sources, but that coverage is not significant (I would expect a bio and what contributions he has made to society, for example), and the sources are not secondary (they are third-party, sufficient for WP:V, but give no insight, analysis, or synthesis that one would expect from secondary sources; the articles simply say "he's old, he lives here". --M ASEM  (t) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)