See also, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts#Summarization of comments without nonsense
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 Mandsford 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Goossenaerts[edit]

Jan Goossenaerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country. Fails WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were articles about him before he became a supercentenarian, so don't talk about one event hes had coverage for his birthdays way before 110, and the other event is becoming the oldest man in the continent. Longevitydude (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is Being the oldest any less notable then being the tallest, shortest, or heaviest? their all in guinness world records Longevitydude (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness is a reliable source. But it is not a guarantor of notability. Guinness has its standards for notability. We have ours. They are not coterminous. The tallest, shortest or heaviest person ever might be notable for our purposes. The current tallest, shortest or heaviest person in Europe? Not so much. David in DC (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is lost when people die, then Michael Jackson isn't notable either.Ryoung122 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We edit articles one at a time hereabouts, so I'm not sure that "...if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country" is particularly relevant. One need not delete speedily if an article about a living person doesn't include unsourced derogatory information, and I don't think anyone's contending that a longevity claim is derogatory, so we've got an eternity to deal with these other pages.
I'm inclined to agree that the quoted language from the centenarian list ought to apply to super-centenarians (and even super-duper-centenarians), as well. But we need not reach that far to resolve this case. All we need do is determine if being the oldest man in Europe, absent any other special, reliable, verifiable characteristics or achievements, is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on en.wikipedia. Per nom, I think not. David in DC (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this article and any others like it, including the links provided from other AfDs above, should be deleted without a redirect, and the name of the person (and any one- or two-sentence blurb about them) should be on the list page. I think we need a policy for this type of person, who is clearly not otherwise notable. Let the person be searched for in some results, but no reason to keep a redirect to the page. — Timneu22 · talk 11:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is YOU. You have been campaigning against articles on supercentenarians, using smear tactics (you say I don't understand statistics, but you are the one that believes in 950-year-olds), recruiting Grismaldo and Itsmejudith time and again.
How about some FACTS:
1. The WOP does NOT give out titles such as "oldest in Europe." However, that can be referenced to NEWS sources (whether true or not...Wikipedia standards are verifiability, not truth).
2. Notability isn't established by your opinion, it's established by outside sources.
3. "Longevity cruft" is a POV-pejorative. Scientists study longevity, including supercentenarians, and the media covers them.
4. I actually agreed with five of the seven articles you listed for deletion. The List of Oldest Living Men should have been kept (4-3 in favor of keep), as well as "Oldest veterans." That you are pushing to delete generalized lists shows your problems with this run deeper than just whether this man is individually notable or not.Ryoung122 00:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(JJB continues comments hidden by Ryoung122's WP:TALK violation:) While this is not the typical situation of WP:SPAs voting, WP:WOP has been documented as suffering from views contrary to WP basics in very similar (but much more entrenched) ways. Longevitydude and SiameseTurtle are WP:WOP members and Brendanology and Petervermaelen meet the basic criteria of WOP SPAs. I will now notify the two FTN editors and the WP:WOP talk page. JJB 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Siamese Turtle is a lot brilliant than you, JJ. It is actually YOUR views, not our views, that are contrary to science. Since you have ZERO chance of succeeding with your religious arguments in the scientific field, you have chosen to bully teens (like LongevityDude, Brendanology, and Nick Ornstein) and push your POV bias on Wikipedia, where "anyone can edit"...including complete idiots.Ryoung122 00:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(JJB picks up again:) My additional factors: "Oldest verified" excludes a large number of unverified European supercentenarian longevity claims as if GWR verification is the only POV necessary, when in fact many parts of the world simply do not have a way of documenting most of their people to GWR standards. Similarly, the solicitation that we join Yahoo WOP in order to verify hidden webcruft is plainly anti-WP; WP:V requires that any citations to Yahoo WOP can be tagged to "request quotation", and there are a junkyardful of such citations in the topic articles. Further, one reason these newspapers are so convenient so quickly, yet without translation, is that WP:WOP and GRG are very often primary sources for such articles and know of their placement ahead of time: note "according to gerontologists" in first article and the very name GRG in the next three, each of which refer to "80 supercentenarians" (verified, living); compare list of living supercentenarians, what a coincidence that WP editors and "gerontologists" agree so closely, maybe they are the same people? So the first four articles are all really the same article, only the fifth seems to have some independent material, and the reliance on videos above further demonstrates the GNG failure. David's later comments about WP:WOP are right on target, and then Longevitydude admits the conflatability WP:WOP and GRG, and the accessibility of WP to GRG, by saying "you dont see the GRG making afds". Thus not only are the arguments a failure, they are carried out by multiple COI edits. The closer had better not wimp out with "NCDK". JJB 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

More false charges and attempted intimidation. Jan Goosenaerts's articles are NOT sourced from the GRG or from the WOP. They come from Belgium.
But more than that, you should stick to your own arguments. Saying that the other people's arguments are a "failure" is POV bias at least.
But more than that, this statement crosses the line of acceptability:
The closer had better not wimp out with "NCDK".
Excuse you, please get off your high horse. You are not "God". Now you are attempting to intimidate the closer's decision about this debate. That's unconscionable.
Do you consider the effect of your actions on others? You are pushing non-scientific POV's on a general encyclopedia that lots of kids read. Wikipedia is NOT a political campaign. Go back to AlterNetDaily. Speaking of "fringe," it's called "alter" net because it supports fringe views, like yours.Ryoung122 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multiple reliable sources"? Are you looking at the same entry as everyone else?Griswaldo (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article I'm looking at links to coverage in several sources, among them Voice of Russia, RTL, and Sud Presse. Thparkth (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thparkth. First off, awesome user name dude. I didn't figure it out unti I tried to type it out. Then all wath revealed. On to business, please review JJB's earlier explanation of why four of the 5 sources are all mirrirs of one another. In pertinent part, he says: "[O]ne reason these newspapers are so convenient so quickly, yet without translation, is that WP:WOP and GRG are very often primary sources for such articles and know of their placement ahead of time: note "according to gerontologists" in first article and the very name GRG in the next three, each of which refer to "80 supercentenarians" (verified, living); compare list of living supercentenarians, what a coincidence that WP editors and "gerontologists" agree so closely, maybe they are the same people? So the first four articles are all really the same article, only the fifth seems to have some independent material, and the reliance on videos above further demonstrates the GNG failure."David in DC (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the key point is that four different reliable sources have taken the editorial decision to run this story - and that creates a presumption of notability for me. (The fifth source, somewhat confusingly, appears to be a political party.) Thparkth (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what someone said earlier, nothing makes a side look weak like attacking the person instead of the arguement, or cussing, something to think about. Longevitydude (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm, as I've said, reasonable editors can differ about whether the presumption set up by the first several bullets of WP:GNG control or whether the final bullet of WP:GNG, setting up the terms for rebutting the presumption, controls. But we're talking about the same guideline. Neither view violates WP:NPOV. David in DC (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that you wish to determine this matter based upon your own POV as to whether extreme age is notable. This is unacceptable as you are not a reliable source - you are just a random passerby with no special standing. The point of the guideline is to determine such matters by reference to independent third parties rather than taking a poll of whoever shows up at AFD. Your position violates multiple policies including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the RS argument here. These sources are virtually mirrors of one another, which another editor has pointed out above. Also, trivia is published in newspapers in various forms and at various times to make the readers feel all warm and cozy inside but that's not what an encyclopedia does. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and certainly not the society section of one. I don't see your position as any less of an opinion than that of David. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectable newspapers are commonly used as sources on Wikipedia and are quite satisfactory for establishing notability because their professional status and reputation indicate the independent and reliable nature of the interest in the topic. In this case, they include Gazet van Antwerpen and De Standaard which seem quite adequate for our purposes. The opinions of individual editors here are quite worthless by comparison and there is not the slightest policy basis for accepting them instead. AFD is not a vote and editors are expected to bring evidence to the discussion, not their personal opinions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good ah point Colonel. I am going to think about re-evaluating my opinion now. I see the loggic in this, Thank you, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge.

I see several problems/issues with the "deletionist" arguments.

1. Notability is established by outside sources, not your personal opinion (Carolyn).

2. Some have said that persons cannot be notable for "old age" alone.

Yet if we run a Google search on news for "Eugenie Blanchard" we get more than 600 main articles in English, as well as other languages. So, that's a false argument.

Instead, the argument should be: "at what point does someone become notable for age"?

3. "Notability is not temporary." This is a poor argument. That is used for incidental, one-cycle news reports. But someone who is the "oldest man" in their nation, they have the title every day. And when they die, they are recorded as the titleholder. That's not temporary.

Do we say that, since George Kell won a batting title decades ago, he was notable in 1949 but not now? Also, we have every major league baseball player ever listed as "notable," coverage or not.Ryoung122 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues[edit]

It is funny that you would accuse me of being a meatpuppet when I have been on Wikipedia approximately 3.5 years longer than you. Grow up and stop insulting others and accusing them of bad faith because this article was nominated for deletion.--TM 04:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, at least im grown up enough not to be using foul language, and the reasons for deletion don't sound like good faith, and neither does making an afd for a less than 20 minute old article. Longevitydude (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as to GNG, the third-party coverage of the 110th is not independent of the GRG, of which some of the keep !voters are members, and it's not significant. The sources are all taking his word for it without verification, so they're not independent or secondary in relation to him either. As to reliable, it would be more reliable if someone had reported reviewing the birth certificate (the GRG is only "tracking" him, not "verifying" him). And as to specific notability guidelines, where the workgroup has been negligent by not creating any, there is a general consensus shown by the U.S. article above that 110s with this degree of coverage belong in the list articles. But in short, your position comes down to saying that anybody who claims to be old enough to get newspaper reporters out there deserves a separate article, which is not much different from the radical inclusionism you deny above, nor from the WP:IINFO position. Even if I went further than you do, and took the position that all coverage of Jan was encyclopedic, it would still be better managed on a workgroup level (and thus an improvement) to merge and redirect, rather than to maintain a separate article that remains a stub at this date (along with all the other stubs). And that's before the walled-garden issues, plus the recently discovered issue that Longevitydude has claimed he was verified without providing any proof of that fact in all his sourcing. JJB 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
While not exactly evil, !voting presents significant problems. If I were an admin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd conclude the broadest consensus is that this isn't a WP:BIO, but that a redirect to a list is less objectionable to more editors than an outright delete. If I were king, which we all should be thankful I'm not, I'd take a blowtorch to a whole lot of stubs that strike me as hobbyist trivia and well within the dictates of WP:NOT.
If I were an admin, I'd also take note of the larger problem of the conflation of the GRG, WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People, the GWR, the GRG yahoo group - and the myriads of WP:CRUFT GRG has accreted into WP. Then I'd punt that whole issue to a colleague or colleagues whose judgment and equanimity I trusted and who wouldn't kill me for asking them to step into this viper's nest next.
Longevitydude's passion for knowledge is evident. As is his zeal for generic fairness and due respect for "allies" he admires. But his arguments above present prime facie evidence that the Wikipedia World's Oldest People WikiProject and its acolytes are explicitly out to do something other than build an encyclopedia. Taken together with the talk of leaders, and access to special yahoo group documents, and most of the rest of the carp on the WOP project pages (especially its talk page), there's a forest out there that needs serious pruning, of which this trivial stub is merely a symptom.
But we edit these articles one at a time. A close here need only address this tree. The larger forest can be discussed at an RfC, on a Noticeboard, or, as has been happening because the appropriate WikiProject has utterly failed to create a "common outcomes" protocol, one arbor at a time.
Enric Naval and The Blade of Northern Lights have both shed more light than heat above (metaphor stolen directly from BNL). If you take what they say about WP:BASIC and what I've said above about the interplay between the rebuttable presumption erected by the first several bullets of WP:GNG and the very example of an appropriate rebuttal to the presumption found WP:GNG's final bullet, the closing note for a delete or a redirect to a list is practically pre-written.David in DC (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (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.
More