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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hans Hess (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)

No assertion of notability made save perhaps one of advanced age for the 16th century, and I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would provide evidence of notability. Still, historical figures sometimes rely to a greater degree on offline sources, so additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e decker^talk 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and contemplate an A7 speedy. Personally, I wouldn't be generous enough to consider his lifespan an implicit claim of notability, and his relationship to Hans Jacob Hess is certainly not one. Speedy requirements notwithstanding, I don't see any appropriate sources here, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Absolutely no claim to notability in the article. Concur that this is probably a good A-7 CSD candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A lifespan of more than 95 years is very rare, even today. And plenty of independent sources about him, even online. My friend (a direct patrilineal descendant) has some papers on him. Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have other sources that might help establish notability you should add them. I couldn't find any and right now this article still looks like a good A-7 candidate to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent online sources. http://www.geni.com/people/Johannes-Hess/6000000022865365212 http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/e/s/David-Eugene-Hess/GENE2-0001.html http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/e/s/David-Eugene-Hess/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0089.html http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/hess/pats http://www.reocities.com/judys-space/Vol2/hesse.htm http://www.crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol2/hesse.htm

• Family-contributed genealogy resources do not meet the projects requirements for reliable sources. Unfortunately, none of these websites would be considered independent and reliable for the purposes of this article. Also, Wikipedia uses the word "WP:Notability" as a term of art referring to the threshold of coverage necessary for inclusion. This subject's claimed age during the era he lived in may be rare or distinctive or even interesting, but those characteristics do not make him notable, as the term is used here. As a separate problem, adequate and reliable documentation for longevity claims before the 20th century (and, often, even then) is generally not considered to exist; it is impossible to distinguish legitimately long-lived 16th century people from spurious claims of long life (of which there are many). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I'd imagine finding sources dating back 460 years ago is going to be pretty hard, The source so far isn't perfect but it's better than nothing, So I say Keep & Try improving more sources. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you see the notability justifying a "strong keep?" As far as I can tell there is nothing here beyond evidence that he existed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This guy did nothing of note. He was the some-great-grandfather of a notable person, that is it. I am all for keeping articles on historic people, Wikipedia is far too presentist, but this guy is totally not notable. He did nothing, held no positions, as far as I can tell wrote nothing, advocated no phylosopy or idea, he is totally unnotable. Living to be 95 has been a lot less than remarkable for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Living to be 97 is a big deal today, and was an even bigger deal in the 1500s, when the life expectancy was about 40. Given that most sources about him are likely to be print or handwritten sources in foreign languages, I think the best approach is to keep the article and try to expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewTrierLeaks (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC) — NewTrierLeaks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Being rare, interesting, or a "big deal" isn't the same as being notable. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing in the article to suggest that any significant independent sources will be found. We don't even have a reliable source for the fact that he lived to 97 - could be the result of a typo somewhere along the line. Even if it's not, where is the evidence that people in the C16th wrote about other people just because of their age? Moswento ^talky 10:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a compelling argument. If sources are found, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Take a look at Oldest people. None of the people in that list have done anything significant or noteworthy - other than living for a long, long time. As has been said above, while living to be 97 may not be a huge deal today, living to be 97 in an era when the average lifespan was about 40 is nothing short of remarkable. And, it's not terribly surprising that sources from that era (roughly 500 years ago) are not available online! Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remarkable" is not the same as "something that multiple independent reliable sources have been written about". Nowadays, very old people are the subject of human interest newspaper stories. They didn't have human interest newspaper stories in the 16th century. Notable people from the past have generally been written about at least a few times centuries after their death. There is no evidence that this is the case with this chap. Moswento ^talky 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Badly sourced article lacking any indication that this is a person of historical interest. As for the claimed age at death, two of the web pages linked above appear to be honest enough to represent the birth year of Johannes/Hans and the following three generations as nothing more than estimates, but not even these pages clarify how these (estimated) dates were calculated. As far as any of us can tell, this Johannes/Hans (who was almost certainly never called "Johannes Hans") may well have been born a decade or two later than 1458. --Hegvald (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the date is not an estimate. It is because usually only birthyears, nor birthdates, were recorded at the time MrCorve (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) — MrCorve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do you have a reliable source for his birth year? Or, better, multiple independent reliable sources about him? Moswento ^talky 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All of this debate about his age is irrelevant. Even if age was somewhere in WP:BIO (and it's not) the subject still runs afoul of One Event. This a non-notable individual and this article needs to go. On a side note; I don't want to accuse anyone of anything specifically out of deference to AGF, but I would encourage people to be careful about sock puppetry. That's a huge no no around here and can get an editor blocked or even banned. Just saying... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (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.