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 at AfD) 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)

You'll get my bill. EEng (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The points above about WP:NOPAGE and WP:ROUTINE are well-taken, and the rationale in the two AfD's cited in the nom seem entirely on point. The nominator has suggested the appropriate global solution. Some day, we should have mini-bios on list pages for these sorts of people. The phenomenon of human longevity is encyclopedic. The anointing of "winners" and "title-holders" in this suite of articles has long been a plague on the project, elevating hobbyist's interests in "incumbents" and "successors" over the legitimate wiki-coverage of human longevity. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The result and implications of the Koto Okubo AfD are being misrepresented and used as a tool to unfairly override long-standing consensus. The general consensus for a long time seemed to be that World's oldest people and World's oldest men titleholders are notable enough for a standalone article (and quite frankly, common sense dictates that being the world's oldest man out of several billion is noteworthy). Koto Okubo's case was different and unusual, however: firstly, she was never the world's oldest person (only the world's oldest woman). Secondly, she received an unusually small attention from the media, hence there really wasn't much to write a biography about. For Antonio Todde, this is a bit different. More sources, other than obituaries, may well exist.-- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to those "long time" consensus discussions? In the Okubo discussion, I noted that it was a merge consensus in 2012 based on being the oldest woman in Asia but it was just repeatedly ignored. In 2015, the oldest woman was not sufficient. People refusing to discuss and reverting it repeatedly is not consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I will no doubt get tagged as an "SPA" but can I point out that everyone who has voted "delete" is/has been involved with longevity-related articles and the WP:BATTLEGROUND that currently exists there, so please take that in to consideration. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I also suspect that having Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts up may affect things as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with the opinion of Ollie231213. I think this article meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.--Inception2010 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"'Keep'" article exists on four other wikis so they must know something. 166.171.121.14 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)