Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Moran (supercentenarian)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- James Moran (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)
Two things can be told about James Moran: He won a grain cradling contest, and allegedly died aged 111. Neither of these helps to establish encyclopedic notability. FoxyOrange (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep any documented supercentarian should be able to have an article here. Perhaps this cannot be expanded on further, but that is not a reason to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To my knowledge, there is no special notability criterion for supercentenarians. Instead, WP:BIO should be followed, which states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I don't think this is met here. And what is more, James Moran is by no means a "documented supercentarian", because his date of birth is not known for sure.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "documented" usually means "Guinness Book of World's Records" certified. Hardly a measure of notability. Rather we just rely on BIO or GNG as you say, regardless if they are "official", no bias against countries or time periods where birth certificates didn't exist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To my knowledge, there is no special notability criterion for supercentenarians. Instead, WP:BIO should be followed, which states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I don't think this is met here. And what is more, James Moran is by no means a "documented supercentarian", because his date of birth is not known for sure.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The best I could find is this mention, no byline, that he was 110 sometime in 1913 in the Dwight, Illinois Star and Herald,[1] not exactly the New York Times. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Three sources exist which verify his claimed age, but subject does not meet WP:BIO. It's not possible to check the Conner source since the book is rare, not held in any libraries,[2] not helping claims of notabilty. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2013 (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.