This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
At 111, Brooks will not be the oldest veteran forever, at which point this article will say 'he was once the oldest US veteran' and pretty much nothing else. This article has nothing about the force he served in (not even which branch of the military!), where he was stations, which battles he fought in, or his life after the service. Longevity records don't always warrant an article. Bkatcher (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just created it yesterday, Rome wasn't built in a day, if you think it is not notable please at least wait a few days before AFDing it. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your impressions of someone's fame or virtue, this page has already gone through an AfD where it was judged to pass GNG, and you are repeatedly refusing to accept that consensus. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If two reliable sources created independent and in-depth descriptions of me, I would pass GNG. Whether it was because I cured cancer or because I grew a really big potato, if it inspires multiple in-depth independent accounts of me then the criterion for notability on Wikipedia is satisfied. It couldn't possibly matter less whether someone grew a bigger potato later, or whether you hate potatoes and don't want them mentioned on Wikipedia. That's just not the policy. Clogging up a talk page with advocacy for deletion that's completely irrelevant to policy and against the consensus established at the last AfD is a great example of disruptive editing. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]