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. Despite some relatively strong arguments about WP:MERGE, if there are no notability concerns here then the fundamental consensus that the subject is in fact notable. A merge discussion can be held on the talk page through the merge process if the article is deemed a stub which is borderline per definitions at WP:STUB. Mkdw^talk 05:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Painter (supercentenarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that there is enough significant coverage of reliable sources for a separate article on Mr. Painter. Of the three sources here, I added the GRG table M that reiterates his birth, death, age and ranking as world's oldest man. The City Paper is an obituary showing essentially WP:ROUTINE local coverage of his death (even though it had a statement from the Governor). The other source is his local congressman congratulating him on his 112 birthday which given the way the Congress Record is full of these kinds of things is almost WP:ROUTINE coverage as well. Both notably were based on his significance as the oldest Tennessee which was later learned to be incorrect for what that means. I think per WP:NOPAGE we should redirect the page to List of the verified oldest men and the actual details about here could be made into a mini-biography there (List of supercentenarians from the United States has nineteen at the moment). Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Does the French Legion of Honor make him notable? EEng (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, not every one listed at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name has an article so I'd say it wouldn't make him automatically notable. We're back to the WP:GNG analysis then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly doesn't make him inherently notable. It's a very common award, even to foreigners. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. EEng (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A substantial article that makes clear claims of notability based on extreme age and recognition for his military service. The scope and breadth of the article and the inclusion of appropriate reliable and verifiable sources satisfy our notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And so the never ending deletion spree continues. This man was not recognised as the oldest living man until after his death, so naturally there isn't as much coverage for him as we typically see for other former world's oldest men, but does that make the achievement any less significant? No. I've added some more sources in to the article although it might need a clean up. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Extremely Weak keep/leaning merge Being one of five people in a state of 6 million or so to have been awarded France's highest honour would certainly merit consideration of an article. A Keep rationale would have a stronger case if it was made cleared as to why Mr Painter was awarded the honour. I'm not looking for feats like Charles Upham, but there surely should be something. Excepting his war service, the article actually weakens his claim for a standalone article as he came from a family of long lived individuals. Blackmane (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems to be common sense that the oldest man in the world at any one time is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question on the table is notability, but WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't make any sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are. What I meant to say is "The question on the table isn't notability, but WP:NOPAGE." EEng (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be enough on the page for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically in WP:NOPAGE are you citing, it is like telling people the answer is in the bible, all your questions will be answered there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't compare NOPAGE to the bible, either in length or inscrutability. Anyway, the relevant parts of NOPAGE are

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic... Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page... Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page... Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub.

EEng (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can "a notable topic ... be covered better" by reducing his biography to 4 data points in a table? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says above: "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". EEng (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge keep on List of the verified oldest men and add a mini bio to that page. Not enough for a stand-alone article but it fits the format of the list page for inclusion of a minibio. Then create a redirect with the subject's name as a search term. David in DC (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Oldest man. (Though no inline citation for the same.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. There's not enough here for a standalone article, even if GNG were met. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep solid referencing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since he was posthumously verified as having been the WOM, there is reason as to why this man didn't escape local media attention. He also received France's highest honour, which further strengthens the reason as to why he should have his own article here on Wikipedia. 930310 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Hardly. There are five ranks of the order. Apparently he's in the rank that has 75,000 other recipients. Anyway, it's not about what the subject "should have", it's about the best way to present whatever's worth presenting about him (WP:NOPAGE). EEng (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States and create a redirect as a plausible search term - Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB, we should try to avoid creating articles which will never grow beyond stubs. As to the question of whether the Légion d'honneur confers automatic notability, WP:SOLDIER has a footnote that in the event of the nation's highest valor decoration having multiple grades or classes, only the highest military grade qualifies. Should Mr. Painter be added to any list of Légion d'honneur recipients, he should be wikilinked to his section in List of supercentenarians from the United States. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. World's oldest man deserves a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic" i.e. it's not about what the subject "deserves", it's about what best serves the reader's understanding. EEng (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commentary. To clarify further, the subject deserves a stand-alone article, so the reader's understanding can be better served. The detail can be listed in the subject's article and be wikilinked from the broader topic. In this way, the reader does not have to read about this individual unless they really want to. The "broader topic" would be cluttered up by including all this detail there. Jacona (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on existing coverage which should satisfy general guidelines for determining notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a merge question, why are we here. Merges are handled on the talk page, this is Articles for Deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, lost to history is that fact that AfD was originally "Articles for Discussion" -- it gradually came to be called Deletion because that's 98% of the traffic here. I thought about making these proposals on the article talk pages, as you suggest, but several other editors felt that the increased visibility/transparency of AfD might be preferable, given the long sorry history of longevity topics. But you're the second or third editor to make the same suggestion recently, so I'm reconsidering. Thanks. EEng (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this lost to history? It has always been my understanding that this forum was initially referred to as Votes for Deletion and was later renamed to Articles for Deletion. I was not aware this was ever referred to as Articles for Discussion. The option to merge is an editorial decision which can be dealt with on the respective talk page. As to your question of relevancy, I am afraid we disagree. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, if I could remember where it's lost to history, then it wouldn't be lost to history, would it? Maybe I'm thinking of TfD, which really is "Templates for discussion". EEng (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I believe you are simply mistaken. A name change of that magnitude would not be lost to history, and I don't see how it would be possible given the nature of how Wikipedia operates. A cursory search shows that a renaming was proposed in ~2009 but consensus was not reached. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I had it backwards. Great detective work on your part, though I'm not sure it matters. EEng (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'NOPAGE is a a pretty strong argument here. The info presented here is much better presented in context in other articles. So Merge and include a short bio on the list article. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.