Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Todde

Antonio Todde

Antonio Todde (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)

Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), the consensus is that being the World's Oldest Person in and of itself is insufficient for determining if the person should have a stand-alone article. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards. While there are multiple reliable source here, as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), the sources here are all obituaries, making the coverage more line with being WP:ROUTINE than actually passing WP:GNG. The content could be merged into another of the mini-bios found at List of Italian supercentenarians#People. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep Your standards of notability give the impression you think you WP:OWN the site's longevity pages. He has had PLENTY of coverage, and your standards =/= Wikipedia's standards. The oldest living man at the time of death is meaningful IMO. You ONLY nominated it because I mentioned it in another AfD, and Todde is the 16th oldest verified man ever. DN-boards1 (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm basing this on the prior discussions which have been pretty consistent to me. If you think they were wrongly decided, that's for deletion review. Basically the only information of any note about him is birth and death dates. The rest is basically trivia about his life and that's not enough for a separate article about him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did you just call someone's LIFE "trivia"? That seems VERY arrogant. He's a person, not a footnote. He had a life, detailing it is not adding trivia. You literally just called his life "trivia". DN-boards1 (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you're just going to be argumentative, I'm not going to waste any more time with you. The prior discussions show a clear consensus that few people here find these kinds of articles sufficient in line with the policies here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Classic case of WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Nominator took the words right out of my mouth (or at least borrowed a few from my own nominations). Canadian Paul 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I interject here that, in general, I think the more useful distinction is not (as usual) notability, but WP:NOPAGE. I suspect that many supercents will be notable via multiple-source coverage etc., but a standalone article for each isn't warranted because there's so little to say about them, and they're better-presented in a larger context such as a list -- again, see NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That's definitely a much more concise (and better-worded) way to phrase some of the rationales I have been giving. Thanks. Canadian Paul 21:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)