Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Riudavets

Add links
Source: 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 keep (

non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Joan Riudavets

Joan Riudavets (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)

Per

WP:NOPAGE this article should be consolidated into List_of_Spanish_supercentenarians#Joan_Riudavets where I have already added his short bio. The content about him not being the oldest person in Spain and who succeed who as oldest where is just confusing and best handled on the appropriate list elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does he fail
WP:GNG? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
His only claim to fame is living a super long time. Everything barely worth saying fits in a paragraph. The rest of the prose about other people is better presented in a list. Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His only claim to fame... So he does have a claim to fame? He is notable then. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Claim". "Claim." EEng (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to Europe list, there being nothing worthwhile in the article that can't be accommodated there (possibly with a minibio). EEng (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As usual remove the OR, SYNTH and TRIVIA and there is insuffiicent encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article, therefore clearly fails NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is just a guideline. Recent AfD discussions like this one show that many editors believe that standalone articles about people notable for longevity can be perfectly acceptable, so there's no "clearly" about this. Please explain how the information in this article would be better presented elsewhere. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply
]
If he is so important surely he deserves a mini-bio on the Spanish page - yet you deleted that??? I've restored it because it is central to this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article makes a clear and distinctive claim of notability. The claim is backed up by a broad range of reliable and verifiable source. The article is of ample size to provide the significant coverage appropriate for the topic. The article as it stands meets every possible aspect of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Really? the oldest person in the world, oldest Spanish man ever and seventh oldest man ever recorded isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Spanish supercentenarians or some similar list. The coverage that I see/can find for this individual indicates some measure of notability, but not the need for a stand-alone page. Canadian Paul 18:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources sufficient to demonstrate notability and support separate article. Artw (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In spite of my best efforts to show how Mr Riudavets can be well presented in the proposed target article Inception2010 insists on deleting anything about him [1]. Here is a link to how I had it for this discussion and hopefully long term. [2] Legacypac (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me recommend to my fellow editors that it's well worth following the link to take a look. EEng (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep One of the oldest men of all time, well sourced article and notable due to having been the oldest living man in the world at one time. 930310 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
How well sourced it is isn't the question -- it's whether there's anything worth saying about the subject that can't be as well or better presented in the appropriate list. As it is the article says almost nothing about the subject -- what in the sources to you see being added? EEng (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of the World's Oldest Men, his notability is still noticed some ten-odd years after his death, as shown in this 2014 article [3]; therefore, the article passes
    WP:SIGCOV. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply
    ]
Irrelevant, since notability isn't being questioned. EEng (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the oldest men ever. sourced are great. User Legacypac should consider only placing Afd tags at articles that are truly in question of notability etc.. not only apply IDONTLIKEIT.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is irrelevant since notability isn't the basis of the nomination. EEng (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the case at hand not just vote against all my AfDs and attack me because you like excessive coverage of pageants. I'll take further such comments as disruptive behavior. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider that disruptive behaviour you should consider not sending me disruptive notifications of non existing personal attacks. A suggestion that is well based should be considered as such, a suggestion. Now to the matter at hand, EEng do not call my opinion irrelevant, it makes no sense and it is truly irrelevant as I do not even mention notability but the fact that he is oldest and the sources are great. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not even mention notability". Um, yes you do. Perhaps you should look at your own comment again. EEng (talk) 01:46, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joan_Riudavets&oldid=1080212621"