Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredie Blom

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 delete. Tone 09:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredie Blom

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Farcical longevity claim, the sources all center on the fact he claimed to be a ludicrous age, smoked, and then died. The only sources discuss his death and two very small portions of his life. No obvious place to merge any of this, so it should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This misrepresents the issue. He has a government-issued identity document, so the claim is not just "his claim", and is probably as reliable as the many others that are listed on this basis. Greenman (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how supercentenarian validation works. Read the articles supercentenarian and longevity claims, and look through the Gerontology Research Group (and their website, which is fairly interesting). I've seen people with government documents showing they're 137 (see the entry on Bir Narayan Chaudhary in longevity myths), that doesn't make their claims remotely plausible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To respond here as well, this is not about "supercentenarian validation", as I agree the claim is dubious. This is about the subject's notability. Greenman (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the drawbacks of the article but it was posted in the ITN on 25 August 2020. Abishe (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical longevity fanfluff article: dubious age claim, transient notability. Contains virtually no encyclopedic content. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous other typical longevity fanfluff articles, you fail to say why this one in particular is worthy of deletion. Greenman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've been pruning them for 2 years now. See here for just the first installment of that effort. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unconvincing reasons why an African longevity claim in particular should be targeted for deletion when Wikipedia contains numerous others. As stated above, has even appeared on Wikipedia:In The News and media around the world. Greenman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with his being African, my history shows I've nominated fanfluff supercentenarian articles from people in a lot of countries around the world. This article never should have been in ITN; it has almost no substantive sourcing, and certainly nothing approaching the level of veracity required to even consider him being a verified supercentenarian, much less the second oldest man in history. So what, he smoked and claimed to be an implausible age? That's thoroughly run of the mill for longevity claims. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with then? How does this differ from the unverified claims in Category:Longevity_claims, most of which are likely false. As pointed out above, the claim is based on his identity document, not on "his claim". You make it sound like he's some random person with no identification claiming something outrageous. Instead, the outrageous claim that got him worldwide coverage is based on official documentation. Greenman (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are a lot of articles formerly in that category which have been deleted (my personal favorite is Wook Kundor, which is one of the most frankly bizarre things I've ever read; you can get an idea from the AfD). They're a combination of ancient and medieval figures (why we wouldn't be certain about someone living 2,000 or 500 years ago seems self-evident), people who were actually famous but we're not sure exactly about age (c.f. Silas Simmons and Taiwo Olowo), and a couple of people who became the subjects of sustained, substantive coverage for ridiculous age claims (see Shigechiyo Izumi; there are a couple of these which really should go too, and I think I know which one I'm nominating next). A short spate of coverage about smoking, being depressed about COVID (as if that's news, good lord), and dying doesn't make for a substantive article, per WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- typical gerontology fanfluff: sketchy age claim, lots of babble about his personal habits. It's poor form to insinuate someone's singling out articles about African people specifically and I hope the closing administrator takes note. Reyk _YO! 12:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing of substance, and this claim is not even well documented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with notability? Most of the people with articles listed on Category:Longevity_claims have claims that are even more dubious. Greenman (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actual South African editor here. This article should be deleted since there is no encyclopaedic content. It is pure fanfluff. LefcentrerightDiscuss 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The decision should be based on whether the topic is notable or not, rather than on claims such as "fanfluff", or "the claim is farcical", which are not relevant. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list [...] Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The BBC and the Guardian have devoted entire articles to this subject - he is the main topic of the sources - so notability should not be in doubt. In addition, take into account the existence of numerous other similar articles, Category:Longevity_claims. Greenman (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable enough for WP:GNG, I agree with Greenman's arguments. Jedi wiki 10 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NOPAGE. Just a fanfluff article that lacks any encyclopedic content. A few longevity feature articles that say very little about the subject are its only sources. Given his extreme age claim to be the oldest man ever and no age validating sources (Guinness/GRG) supporting his claim, he doesn't qualify to be included in nearly any other longevity article. Just delete it. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2020 (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.