Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Nelson

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 redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973. Would have voted delete/redirect, but since he is included in the target page, felt redirect was warranted. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Nelson

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

Possibly notable but WP:NOPAGE. It's worth noting that the article was recently created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. EEng (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

improper forum I guess that it depends upon how much detail one wants to include about a bunch of 1EVENT people. Putting them all into one article with the current level of detail would be a bit much. But it can be argued that much of that detail is irrelevant for the encyclopaedic purpose of listing them. We already have List of the verified oldest men and all the citations from all the articles (except any who are independently notable) could be placed there. (Aside: We also have other lists of longevitous people complied at Lists of centenarians, most, if not all, of the people listed in them are independently notable.) Because, aside from List of the verified oldest men and the template listing via {{Oldest men}}, I can find no articles linking to these men, it makes me think that EEng's WP:NOPAGE proposition might be worth considering; however, it shouldn't be done from the entry point of a single article. My conclusion is that this is not the proper forum for such a wholesale change. --Bejnar (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault, but you're behind the learning curve on this [1][2]. The NOPAGE question, for subjects which appear to be notable, do need to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending on how much material is available/desirable to include about them. EEng (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incrementalism? --Bejnar (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're asking. EEng (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) was that being the world's oldest person (female there) was not sufficient for notability for a separate article. As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), articles that are basically obituaries is essentially WP:ROUTINE coverage. In this case, (1) The Guthrian link has no specific article so I'm not sure what it's about; (2) the Miami news link is literally just a short five paragraph obituary about him dying as the oldest person; and (3) this video has a mention of Nelson in section 3 is literally a passing mention of him (and claims he was merely the oldest person in Iowa when he died) with nothing that could use be sourced to the article here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Age does not confer notability. Jbh ^Talk 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973 NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 17 October 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.