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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Matthews was at the time of his death the oldest verterna living in the state of Alabama. Being the oldest vereran living in one of the 50 states (and we could then spread this to hundreds of other countries, and all the states of India, Mexico, Brazil, Grermany and probably some other places), this is not a claim to notability. So let us look at the sourcing. It is one obituary from the local paper in Florence, Alabama where he lived. If we had articles noting him as the oldest veteran or his death in the Birmingham, Montgomery or even Hunsville papers, we might have something to work in, but it is only in the locality where he lives that notice is taken. Basically this article exists because he was mentioned in an article in a paper after Wikipedia was started, and so its very existence adds to our presentism. At best this might be one event. If we keep this we will I guess need articles on every person who was ever the oldest veteran in any first level sub-national entity of a federal style government, just the prospect of how many articles that will be, and how many of them will have utterly escaped any notice for the rest of their lives, suggests that down this road lies madness. Also, if we give this recognition to the oldest veterans at the first level-sub-national level of federal governments, what other oldest also will we give recognition to, just for being the oldest? John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I found more sources about him and added them, basically newspapers did find him being the oldest submariner to be notable, but also so were his early use of a new type of under water rescue equipment. There was even more articles about him that are linked here, but the links are dead, http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com/2006/12/ CT55555 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Other than being old, he wasn't notable as a sailor or for much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you see the bit where he was one of the first people who used the Momsen lung and rescued dozens of people using it in 1939? CT55555 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also loads about him here: https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals/55/Reference/ShiftColors/Documents/Archive/2003JANSC.pdf CT55555 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Found this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (I !voted above, don't count me twice) I reject the whole narrative in the nomination that suggests if he is notable that every other sub-national oldest veteran is notable - because it suggests something other than WP:BASIC/WP:GNG being the benchmark. If every other oldest veteran was written about in multiple reliable independent sources, they meet the criteria, if they don't they don't. We can avoid the straw man argument that keeping this would somehow open floodgates of new articles. Now that we've addressed the initial concern that there was only one source, perhaps the nominator will withdraw the suggestion? CT55555 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are currently 11 sources in the article, many which provide significant coverage to show the article meets WP:GNG. Here are three. [1],[2],[3]. In addition, there is a BBC movie Hanging by a thread in which he appears, as himself, and a book by Peter Maas, The Terrible Hours. Jacona (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't think he did much other than outliving most other veterans, but that's not how WP:BASIC works, he has WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS and so BASIC is satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per a source review, meets WP:BASIC, there's significant coverage in a few articles, along with some somewhat shorter articles that per WP:BASIC, are usable to demonstrate notability because "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" for shorter articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The reference to Momsen lung as a basis for notability here seems suspect. Charles Momsen is notable as the inventor of the device. Matthews' connection to the device is quite vague and appears to be an after-the-fact effort by local newspapers trying to build a narrative on a local man who lived to be 100 years old. There's nothing I've founded from the 1939 time frame referencing Matthews' connection to the lung. Instead, what we have is local coverage trying to build a story about an elderly local man. This piece is typical -- it is written 66 years after the fact at the time of Matthews' 101st birthday and even it doesn't assert (as our article now claims} that he saved 33 people -- rather, it simply asserts that Matthews was "among the first" to try the device and that he "took part" (what part is unclear) in a 1939 rescue using the device. IMO this seems more like human interest coverage about a local centenarian rather than hard news or history. Cbl62 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bona fides of the local newspaper account are called into question in that the paper refers to Matthews' role in a 1939 rescue but our article on the Momsen lung says that "the only emergency use of the Momsen lung was during the escape from USS Tang on October 25, 1944." (emphasis added) This raises serious concerns about local reportage claiming Matthews' connection to a 1939 use of the device. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the person who wrote the offline source that is used to back up the "only time ever" claim was also wrong, and it's difficult to verify. I see comparably equal likelihood that the "only time ever" claim is wrong. What do you think? Are we stumbling towards original research territory here?

I also wonder if your comments lead you to conclude that he is not notable, or you are just pointing out a possible factual error in the article? CT55555 (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about both. In the past, I recall that we had a glut of articles about centenarians who received lots of local coverage for just getting old. The general consensus was that such "really old folk" articles didn't pass GNG based on local coverage. Oftentimes, a local reporter assigned to cover such a local centenarian will tend to exaggerate about the person's past in order to make the story more interesting. I would feel more comfortable about Matthes' notability if we had coverage beyond hyper-local outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we really need to avoid creating articles built on hyper-local coverage period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was featured in a BBC piece (already cited). That's international in nature. I note that he did play himself in the documentary, and I've not seen it, but it's anything but hyper-local. CT55555 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Johnpacklambert that we need to avoid hyper-local articles, but sources here and in the article include sources from Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, the US Navy, a book, and the BBC. Is that hyper-local? If so, what is the definition of a non-hyper-local article? Jacona (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was the one who first said hyper-local, and you're correct that the coverage here extends beyond that. Sometimes, a good "feel good" story takes hold and gets broader coverage, as appears to have been the case here. Even so, I still have my reservations about building an encyclopedia article on such "feel good" journalism. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The broader coverage was not present in the article at the time of the nomination. As is often the case, the AfD has drawn eyes to a low quality article. Kudos to User:CT55555 and User:Jacona for rescuing an old sailor from the turbulent waters of deletion, even if a Momsen lung wasn't needed in the effort. Cbl62 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise the risks of the "feel good" factor, but assuming we're in consensus that with BBC etc, this is a keep? CT55555 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't quite get myself to vote "keep" given the "feel good" nature of the coverage and concerns about accuracy of his supposed role in a 1939 rescue using the Momsen device, but I'm not voting "delete" either. Count me in the "skeptical meh" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Let the record state, that a new category of vote, the "skeptical meh" just dropped! Alert Jimbo! CT55555 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Jacona. User:Johnpacklambert please be willing to change your mind when presented with new information. It's difficult to reconcile your "hyper local" criticism of a US subject when the BBC are featuring him. CT55555 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was a statement about the problems of hyper local coverage in general.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I remain unconvinced that a bit part mention in a BBC documentary is GNG passing, or that a local article on the local navy recruiter being relocated is enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2022 (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.