Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Henry Brett, Jr.

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 Delete, keep arguments did not address the lack of reliable sources backing up the claim of notability. Only source is itself unsure of the facts.. 1 != 2 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Henry Brett, Jr.

James Henry Brett, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO (no substantial coverage in relaible sources; one of the two refs provided is trivial, and the other is a dead link to a website apparently maintained by the editor who added the link, and appears in any case to be content reposted from a mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant Keep. The results of these AfDs have shown that being the oldest person at one period in time in a single state is considered notable. Thus, oldest person in the world would be. --Smashville^BONK! 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply The two recent examples I have seen are both being contested at DRV. In any case, AfD is not bound by precedent, and what's the point of keeping an article which will remain unreferenced against reliable sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Here are the ones I tried...Elias Wen, Emma Carroll, and Consuela Moreno Lopez. I withdrew the noms when I saw the way they were heading. --Smashville^BONK! 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • But of course, why take into account for "keep, because I like it!" Not many people are capable of throwing in reasons besides a vote. Anyways, you're not the closing admin for the articles you nominate for AfD, so you're not the 1 to ask. Neal (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
        • Did I say I was? I just said you'd have a hard time getting it deleted. --Smashville^BONK! 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Notice the article say it is not even sure he was as old as he claimed to be, so the entire record seems like a hoax... Oldest person to undergo surgery does not make you notable, I would say. Greswik (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep possibly oldest person in the world is definately notable. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete another non-notable old person. Who may not even have been as old as supposed. RMHED (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge No substantial reliable sources to establish the notability that the article admits may not even exist. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep abd reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The point of this nom, I believe, is that it can't be referenced better. Cheers, CP 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:BIO simply not notable. - Galloglass 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Unnecessary comment In regards to this debunking page.. I'm a bit mad at Guinness. I find it amazing that no one from Guinness offices have yet to show their proof of claims of this person (after it was debunked by their own member, Robert Young). Or in other words, Guinness can't simply say so and so was the oldest person in the world and not provide proof for it if needed. The fact that Robert Young works for Guinness and still cannot get them to provide documentation is... If this person really was not 111, but ~96, then he wouldn't have set the record for the highest surgery at time, either, so that's a double loss. Neal (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep longevity claim, is still possibly oldest for that period. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — I'll bust your beak! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep as per, well, pretty much everyone who voted keep. You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keeep we are not bound by precedent, but we should be consistent. This and other articles on the oldest people at any given time in the world are notable. The nom might perhaps show the judgment to just nom the ones that are likely to be deleted. Otherwise it looks like a crusade. DGG (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Some have been deleted in the past as well. It's based not on subjective judgment, but on how many sources could be found (hence why I've !voted keep, delete or not commented at all on various different deletions). Cheers, CP 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to DGG. The assertion that oldest people "are notable" misunderstands how WP:BIO works: the fundamental requirement is that there is enough substantive material in reliable sources to allow a properly-referenced article to be written, and being "the oldest" is an assertion of notability, not evidence of it. Where is the substantial coverage in reliable sources to provide evidence of notability you claim? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:09, 12 December 2007 (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.