Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Urrea-Hernández
From 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 Delete without prejudice to recreation with reliable sources. BLACKKITE 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antonio Urrea-Hernández
Unreferenced short stub on a man who lived to about 111 years old; the only refs are list-style entries. Neither a google search nor google news archive threw up anything in reliable sources, so unless more refs can be found he fails WP:BIO. Urrea-Hernández is already listed in Oldest people, which is quite sufficient when there is nothing verifiable to say about him other than date of birth and death, so I suggest deletion. An article on him can of course be recreated if if sufficiently coverage is found in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unless sources can be provided asserting notability. As of now, there is none established/asserted. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
- Keep, a quick google search shows a variety of sources for this article. Why doesn't anyone list the needs citations notice BEFORE they AFD? Justin chat 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- My google search above showed several hits, but nothing in reliable sources. If you have found some, please could you supply a few links? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:BIO --SimpleParadox 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per also holding some of the longest marriage/highest aggregate marriage couples, etc. I think as well as all the supercentenarian AfD BrownHairedGirl is nominating, she should also hunt down the people who created the article and say if you're not going to provide citations and references (hence original research) then expect your article to be nominated for AfD. Neal (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
- Continued Or in other words, I'm getting slightly tired of all these referenceless/citationless articles. I *know* these people did not know the personal biograpgy of Antonio Urrea-Hernandez in their head - they got their source from somewhere, and asking someone else to backtrack Google searching their works is just getting tiresome. Now my goal is to prevent people from creating articles without supply citations and references (just take a look at my contribs), or if they do create articles, to site the immediate site they've used in creating the articles. This is just what happens when you get a bunch of Wikipedia newbs/IP address users in creating new articles. Neal (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
- In this case, the article does seem to have been created by a newbie, but many of the other "supercentenarian" articles were created as a result of original research, some of which was circulated on Robert Young's yahoogroups mailing list. That list has closed archives and subscription is only by moderator approval, so it isn't even possible to check whether it was the source of the original research. The bottom line, though, is that the only referenced "fact" is the dates of birth+death (ref here); it's quite possible that everything else in the biography is fabricated. I quite agree with Neal that it's ridiculous for article creators to expect others to scour the globe looking for for sources for what they have written: the principle in WP:V is that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
In this case, removing the unreferenced material does not even leave a stub article. I have temporarily restored the unsourced material so that it is visible to editors participating in this AfD debate, but I really can't see why Neal is arguing for a keep when the article fails WP:BIO and when the assertions which Neal makes are unsourced. This is the sort of article which gives wikipedia a bad name: it may be true or it may be a hoax, and the reader has absolutely no way of knowing which. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, the article does seem to have been created by a newbie, but many of the other "supercentenarian" articles were created as a result of original research, some of which was circulated on Robert Young's yahoogroups mailing list. That list has closed archives and subscription is only by moderator approval, so it isn't even possible to check whether it was the source of the original research. The bottom line, though, is that the only referenced "fact" is the dates of birth+death (ref here); it's quite possible that everything else in the biography is fabricated. I quite agree with Neal that it's ridiculous for article creators to expect others to scour the globe looking for for sources for what they have written: the principle in WP:V is that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
- Delete the entire walled garden of articles about claimed "supercentenarians." The refs are directory listings at best, and I question whether they are reliable sources at all. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reluctant Delete. If indeed this individual was actually the oldest man in the world for a time then he would, unlike many of these other centenarian Bio articles be truly notable. The problem is we have no actual source information to confirm this, and without real hard information that can be relied upon, we can't be sure that he was as old as claimed. - Galloglass 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to have some notability. --Sharkface217 01:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply When the unreferenced material is removed, what's here to keep? There are some sound practical reasons why WP:BIO requires substantial coverage in secondary sources: apart from the notability concerns, it ensures that we don't retain articles which can only have trivial content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Where is the source? This biography should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
