Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Brooks (American veteran)

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. The delete comments only argued that the subject being the oldest WWII vet does not inherently make him notable, which is true and not debated. All other editors determined the article passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in more than three reliable, independent sources, leading to a consensus of Keep. (non-admin closure)—FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 06:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Brooks (American veteran)

[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)

Being the oldest known surviving American World War II veteran does not make him wiki worthy ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no basis for notability/WP:1E. There will always be an oldest veteran of every war and then they'll die and someone else will become the oldest veteran and so on until all the veterans are dead, that doesn't make any of them notable even if they do attract brief media attention.Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. While it is remarkable he has lived this long, that in and of itself is not necessarily wiki worthy. More interesting would be what he did while in the military and what he did with his life since. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has extensive significant coverage in reliable sources (National Geographic, CBS News, etc.), which makes him notable per WP:BASIC. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger, I can’t remember the guy’s name but there was someone on one of the American National morning news shows that would give shout outs to centenarians having birthdays that day. Ok, so you were mentioned on a national network news show. But being wished a happy 105th birthday is much different than a feature about your actions on the battle field. And as written, this article simply indicates he is the oldest veteran of his era. That is not inherently notable. ThurstonMitchell (talk)|
Keep- Full disclosure: I am the creator of this article, so my vote is probably not unexpected. Lawrence Brooks has received significant independent media coverage, including a full article in National Geographic. If anybody reading this has a National Geographic subscription, I would appreciate it if they could add information from it into this article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant media coverage from well know and reliable sources and such passes WP:Basic. There also exists a precedent for such Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robley Rex. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He looks in great shape for 111. I know this because I've read some of the coverage. And it's the coverage which matters per WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of people look great for the age. When it comes to Wiki, that is meaningless. And you could be written up multiple times in local publications for being the tiddlywinks champion of the elementary school you attend but the coverage for something like that doesn’t mean you deserve an article here. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's heckling is not persuasive as we already have articles about tiddlywinks champions such as Larry Kahn. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – About a decade ago we were measuring the last WWI veterans. We are nowhere near that point with WWII veterans yet. The oldest WWII veteran at this particular moment in time is not notable. Being the oldest of a particular accolade does not grant sufficient notability to be considered eligible for a separate article within an encyclopaedia. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if there was only coverage about him in relation to his birthday, that would be a WP:BLP1E fail, but there is coverage out there for other reasons. The NatGeo article is a good example, and I also found this in the The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate, which provides SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then edit the article to share the information. This is a site to share information not keep it secret. Include the wiki worthy information in the article. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is based around the existence of coverage, not whether that coverage is in the article as of yet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG is very easily met. But the page as it stands isn't doing anyone any favours. Since this is a BLP it should be built up quickly. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As written, there are enough sources to meet GNG, and below are 4 more clippings. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80806435/wwii-veteran-turns-107-with-a-party-in-n/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80807390/wwii-veteran-turns-107-in-nola/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80806849/wwii-vet-celebrates-his-107th-anniversar/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80807062/wwii-veteran-celebrates-110th-anniversar/

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.