Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incomplete longevity claims

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 no consensus. Whereas I see merit of the arguments of both sides, the consensus has not been reached in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete longevity claims[edit]

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

There is no reasoning behind this article. It's either crystal balling these people or absent just parroting the GRG, WP:OR with about what constitutes verified/not verified/complete/incomplete. The top three sections could be merged to Longevity claims but is already there. As for the content of the tables, incomplete, speculative claims should be merged into the working lists at the WikiProject page (complete or the incomplete cases list) rather than as an separate article from the actual "verified" claims. I'm aware that this was created specifically as a split from Longevity claims but the fact that people have made unmanageable tables of every possible person who is alleged to have lived a long time isn't a reason to keep all that content. There needs to be a line somewhere. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always thought that this material was fanfluff of the most trivial kind which is one reason I split it from Longevity claims in the first place. I see no particular encyclopedic merit in moving this material into any other mainspace article. Moving them into any WP:WOP page would hardly detract from such pages as they have little encyclopedic merit anyway, adding another 70kB to them will just make them (more) bloated. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do you support deletion? I think it's fair to say that this information is trivial and not in line with WP:CSC, particularly the requirement that the list be reasonably short. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection to deletion, although it would be easier if there were sufficient grounds under any guideline(s). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:TRIVIA and if it's unencyclopedic would be the grounds. I disapproved of keeping the WikiProject as a hosting page for speculation about people but that failed at MFD so it's here for now. I put that there because I suspect outright deletion will cause another uproar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back to longevity claims per conversation above. I don't see much encyclopedic relevance on its own. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have no problem with a list specifically defined this specifically. Merging to another article would be unwieldy. --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that merging would make the parent article too big. I don't agree it is trivia, everything you don't like is trivia. I hate sports statistics and they are trivia to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion criteria on a subject matter that is notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as personal research. Yes, it has lots of citations; good research does. Nevertheless this is is unmistakeably a research paper into questionable claims of longevity. Seyasirt (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is the equivalent of a research paper. It only violates Wikipedia policy if it represents WP:original thought. Every name on the list is referenced to an external reliable source, so it is not original thought. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separating "complete" and "incomplete" is the original thought. Are these incomplete because no reliable source confirms it? Are these incomplete because one reliable source doesn't confirm it? The article claims to be people who "lack either a complete date of birth or date of death" but instead include people who do have a complete date of birth (e.g. James Olofintuy) but are said to be "unsupported (or insufficiently supported)" which again are either a crystal ball with no support or WP:OR on what is "sufficient" support that nevertheless is included here for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I have an essay that outlines the reasoning at Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research. Simply sorting the data into two different groups--those that are "complete" and those that are "incomplete" is basic editing and sorting.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 19:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomplete" is an awkward name. "Unverified longevity claims" is a more accurate name. I propose that it be moved to the new name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with that. The name of the article is an "editing" issue and not a "deletion" issue. If we can fix this by simply renaming the article, that's not deleting it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"unverified" would appear to invite entries that violate WP:V. Perhaps Partial longevity claims? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit invites entries that violate everything I hold dear on this Earth. We are stuck with that part. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. All longevity claims are unverified. How about merging this article with Longevity claims? -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 16:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How are ALL claims unverified? We have birth, marriage and death certificates and census information for most people born in the past 150 years in developed countries. We have several organizations that debunk age falsification by doing genealogy work. There is a list here somewhere of debunked longevity claims, if it has not been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't explain that very well. What I mean is that everyone listed in longevity claims is unverified. No, not everyone claiming to be over 110 is unverified, but we typically don't refer to verified cases as "claims" (because it's more than just a claim, it's most likely a true assertion). My suggestion was to add a new section in longevity claims called "incomplete claims" which included claims without a full date of birth/death. -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 22:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't debunked claims. These are claims that are called "unverified" because one organization, the Gerontology Research Group has not "verified" them. The title should really be "List of claims of longevity that hasn't been verified by the GRG" since no other sources are allowed to be used. That's my point, the entire splitting of this list is to treat one source as the word on these claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other organisations can be used as sources for longevity-related articles as long as they establish themselves as a reputable authority on the subject of supercentenarian verification. But as things stand, no organisation compares with the GRG, so they are used as the main point of reference when dealing with the verification status of various cases. It isn't because "no other sources are allowed". What's your alternative suggestion? Because relying on only one source that is reliable and reputable is better than relying on multiple sources that are unreliable. -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is an "editing" issue, not a "deletion" issue. The question is: Shall the article be deleted?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name matters because what is defined as "incomplete". People say it's a complete list but it's not, it's a list of things that aren't a part of the complete list. It isn't like we're dealing with incomplete buildings or something, it's incomplete biographies with the birth and death dates unknown. It's basically a list of "people who allege to be very old but we don't have enough information to put them in the verified oldest people list." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2015 (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.