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. There's a consensus that the article meets WP:GNG based on the provided sources and so merits a stand-alone article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kao Se Tseien (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)
(Chinese: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Time for another AfD here. Being the oldest of a defined religious background is not itself notable, and despite the claims of the first AfD there's almost no biographical information about him. Possibly worth mentioning his name somewhere, but there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources were published in 2004, 2005, and 2007 and establish that Nicholas Kao Se Tseien has received persistent coverage in reliable sources. The sources discuss his career as a priest in detail and provide plenty of biographical background about him.

    Cunard (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaching a certain age is an lifetime accomplishment not 1 event. It is an achievement that takes over 110 years and because it is notable, reliable sources begin covering these people. This is how we determine notability here. In fact there are more billionaires than supercentenarians because to reach such age is more difficult and more notable than earning a billion in net worth. Rarely does NOPAGE applied because most sources do not just state there age, they question their lifestyle to determine how such longevity is achieved. It is only common sense to cover supercentenarians in fact we should have even more articles about them, but this history of deleting supercentenarians has been very destructive to Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 10:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must not know what the Chewbacca defense is if you think I am using it. When people reach a certain age reliable sources cover them. On Wikipedia, we are allowed to have articles on people who pass GNG. Having a 3 digit age beginning with 11 does NOT automatically confer notability, but having a 3 digit age beginning with 11 and being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources DOES confer notability. It really is that simple. Valoem talk contrib 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In loving dedication to EEng's WP:ASTONISHME. — JFG talk 10:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few newspapers wrote about his life, but there is nothing notable in there." – that "a few newspapers wrote about his life" over a sustained period of years means he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no requirement that the biographical information about a subject be notable.

    The quotes you have copied clearly demonstrate that reliable sources have covered Nicholas Kao Se Tseien's career as a priest in detail. The sources discuss how he, a Buddhist's son, became a priest. The sources discuss what he did as a priest: worked at Saint Dominic's Cathedral, Fuzhou, established a primary school in Fuzhou, preached in Taiwan at Tamsui District, established the Our Lady of Fatima Church in Taiwan, and established six shrines in the Virgin Mary's honor (three in Taiwan, one in Fuzhou which Communists demolished, one in Malaysia, and one In Lantau).

    Regarding your dad, if "a few newspapers wrote about his life" over a sustained period of years, he would pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the policy, and I'm sure that if my dad reaches 110, he will get just as much coverage as Mr. Kao. We happen to disagree on whether that makes someone notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, my point being that such people would never be covered unless they happened to live longer than most of their fellow humans. We do have articles on notable supercentenarians, the key factor being that their life and deeds were notable independently of their age. — JFG talk 20:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Nicholas Kao Se Tseien never would have been covered if he did not live to 110 years old. But I am basing my "keep" position on Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires only significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no requirement in the guidelines or policies that to pass Wikipedia:Notability, supercentenarians must have lives independently notable of their age even if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources owing to their longevity.

To make "to be notable, a supercentarian must have lives and deeds that were notable independently of their age" a policy-based argument would require an RfC at a venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), like what currently is being done for school inclusion criteria.

Cunard (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Per Cunard. Julia Kinsley (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Julia Kinsley (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Julia Kinsley has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Into the Rift CommanderLinx (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen () 12:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 7&6=thirteen () 13:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 7&6=thirteen () 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism deletion discussions. 7&6=thirteen () 15:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
A lot of the argument – particulary User: JFG's – ignores the sources, and is in essence a "just" and "mere" mocking of his tremendous achievements, including his longevity. Come back when your father reaches 110, and we will see how much coverage he got. It reminds me of an opinion I encountered in my professional career, "Is mere conviction of a felony reason to remove a sitting judge." Once you use those words, you have poisoned the well, and made the Q.E.D. conclusion inevitable. 7&6=thirteen () 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in my statement mocks Mr. Kao or his achievements: he was a respected priest and certainly lived a honorable life. My irony was exclusively directed at the zeal of statements couching "he hit his head twice" as elements of noteworthiness. — JFG talk 18:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it is still a falacious argument. Reductio ad absurdum 7&6=thirteen () 18:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To slightly modify Inigo Montoya: You use that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. In what way is it absurd to argue that routine coverage does not warrant an article? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Chinese google find sources. The prior perceived lack of sources was a result of English language bias, and an example of GIGO. This should clear up the mystery. 7&6=thirteen () 17:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer the vote here is currently 8 keep to 3 delete. No hanging chads. Let's see if you can do the math and figure out the consensus and make the right call unlike here. 7&6=thirteen () 16:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng gave you solid advice to cool it with this severely flawed analogy. I'm unsure why you've chosen not to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful bickering
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
When I want your advice I'll be sure to ask for it. We all need to know where the bodies are buried. 7&6=thirteen () 16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, seriously 7&6, what's going on with you? EEng 18:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about me. Articles can be improved. But there is a larger supervening agenda. Those who are editing Supercentarian articles should be aware.
Those who close should be aware that saying there is "no consensus" when there clearly was undermines the WP:AFD process. Process and honest results matter.
Pool table is tilted. It can't hurt to let the accountants know they are being watched. If the count is honest then the problem is entirely avoided. If not, then ... 7&6=thirteen () 18:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can candidly say that I am so confused beyond belief, and on so many levels, that it's hard to know where to start. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To start, EEng was apparently and openly WP:Canvassed to participate here by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights 7&6=thirteen () 19:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't know what's going on with you, but you're really losing your grip. I participate in all these longevity AfDs; no one needs to canvas me. And AfDs aren't closed according to "counts", as surely you know already. Now cut it out. EEng 19:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only know the timeline. If you had not been summoned (I assume you admit that) your participation would be cleaner. It would have helped to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I only note that other established editors had their votes ignored elsewhere for a lot less. But I know you, and WP:AGF as to your intent. 7&6=thirteen () 19:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you won't extend that assumption to me, but I remain just as confused about everything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the 100th time, WP:Nopage is part of WP:Notability, which has been resolved in the prior AFD. We know what you said; we disagree. 7&6=thirteen () 22:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't disagree with that which you clearly misunderstand. Regardless of what page NOPAGE is on, it deals with a question completely independent of notability. EEng 23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. All you have done is repackaged 'old wine' in 'new bottles.' 7&6=thirteen () 12:00, 10 December 2018 (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.