Template:Did you know nominations/Emile Turlant

 The following is an archived discussion of Emile Turlant's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 10:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC).

Emile Turlant

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that former parachute factory worker Emile Turlant is currently, at age 109, France's oldest living man?

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self nominated at 14:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

• Article meets the minimum length, but not by much and has a lot of fluff. About a third of the article is a list of other very old people. Several sentences about Turlant seem to be pure filler. (e.g. "Even at a very high age, Emile Turlant receives visits from some local officials once or twice during every month." - why is people visiting him of any relevance?) IMO, the article needs more substance and better focus to be featured. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I wait for his birthday on April 1 to try to get more info about him? Futurist110 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, seems reasonable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. For the record, people visting him matters because it shows that he can host and invite people to his house even at the age of 108. Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there appears to be no new info about him for his birthday today. We do have a confirmation that he is still alive today, but that is it. Do you have any ideas for a compromise in regards to this DYK? nomination? Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I will ask for a second opinion. To me, it doesn't feel like the article has enough actual substance to be posted, but I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've cut the unrelated material in the intro and removed extra first names and the like from the article body. I agree with ThaddeusB that some of the material is unencyclopedic, such as the visits from local officials and the "nevertheless enjoyed" sentence. After the cuts, the article is down to 1485 prose characters, and when the unencyclopedic material is edited, it's likely to be shorter. (There should also be a way to more concisely present the material on his marriage, since the sentences on children and opposing schedules go over similar ground.) It's not easy to come up with substance for most centenarians; if the article ends up with a handful of biographical facts, there's nothing wrong with that length, but the resulting article won't qualify for DYK. There may be new material available since yesterday that could provide more substance, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now found a little more info about him. I'm not sure if it will be enough, but let me try. Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now updated his article with the new info. Futurist110 (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am satisfied that the recent improvements satisfy the length requirement, so we are good to go. Nice work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)