Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Butterfield (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Opinion is pretty evenly split, and I don't see any killer arguments on either side. I do see lots of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments on both sides. Looking mostly at the more cogent arguments, we don't seem to have the sources we should, but several of the people on the keep side assert that this person is so extraordinary that we can get by on the weak sourcing. Neither of these camps have unambiguously made their case, so No Consensus it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Butterfield

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

I nominated this page for deletion seven years ago and am doing so again for two reasons. The most important one is that consensus has changed: in 2009 many argued to keep the article on the basis that being the oldest man was automatically notable. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards and numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted/redirected based on their individual merits. This leads me to the second reason, which is that in seven years, it has still not been demonstrated that this individual is covered in multiple, non-trivial, third-party reliable sources as required by WP:N. Of the three sources currently on the page, one is a list (trivial), one is an obituary (not enough to sustain notability), and the third is an interest piece which adds value, but not to the point of this meriting a stand-alone article, as it could never be expanded beyond a stub unless the availability of sources is demonstrated clearly. Any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia Canadian Paul 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just living longer than anyone else with good birth verification on them at the time is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Just because a few years has went by and the article has not expanded does not indicate that notability is faded. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to this table where he is listed. Per WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject he belongs on a list. The only information you lose by placing him on a list is that he worked and had his brain analysed. Which I don't believe is enough to justify a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep. The person asserting that consensus has changed has the burden of proving that true. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The link provided by the nominator to "numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals" shows current consensus on the topic, as does the guidance at the World's Oldest People Wikiproject page. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at the list, and I see no patterns of change. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gee, that's funny. Here are a few you may have missed when you looked at the list. In each, the argument that extraordinary longevity makes a person inherently notable was made and the article was deleted or redirected to a list anyway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egbertje Leutscher-de Vries, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Augusta_Holtz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Todde, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Laure du-Serre-Telmon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Masters (2nd nomination). There a ton more on the list. David in DC (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to List_of_British_supercentenarians#Chronological_list_of_the_oldest_living_person_in_the_United_Kingdom_since_1963. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There's no such coverage here. In the alternative, the only important, encyclopedic information here is adequately covered by the list. Please see ~~WP:STANDALONE~~ WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The oldest man in the world is notable. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being the oldest man in the world makes you notable". Anyway, the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject tell us an article like this (only one or two sources establishing notability) belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (after delete) to List_of_British_supercentenarians#Chronological_list_of_the_oldest_living_person_in_the_United_Kingdom_since_1963 where the subject is already discussed. Not enough source material to build a balanced article and thus this falls under WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worlds oldest man is notable. Over the last few years we very properly removed a considerable number of articles on minor variations of oldest person in ___ and the like, but this one is sufficiently important. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5. Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This is the type of biographical information that some almanacs cover. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Marge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies. Frederick Butterfield is not only former the world's oldest man, but also one of the first recorded male supercentenarian (people who above the age of 110) and one of the earliest supercentenarian, so important. The problem of this page is being short, but not a reason to delete this page. I think Marge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies is better.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. I question whether two blurbs, even in good newspapers, is enough to establish notability. There's a whole lot of "world's oldest man is notable" in this thread, but not much backing that up. We don't have a notability guideline that says that, and I eagerly await sourcing that shows this guy is actually notable. So far, we haven't seen it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see that much has changed since first AfD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with DGG that being the world's oldest man crosses a threshold of notability that "oldest man in country x" does not. It is enough to get him into the Guiness book of Records and having obits in both the Times and Guardian gets him past the GNG criteria. Yes, the details of the rest of his life are of little importance, but we choose, rightly or wrongly, not to have importance as an inclusion criteria. We have instead notability as our main criteria, and two major national quality newspapers and the world renowned Guiness book of Records have taken note of him and his life. SpinningSpark 23:30, 9 November 2016 (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.