Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians (4th nomination)

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 redirect to List of supercentenarians by continent. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of African supercentenarians

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article fails WP:LISTN as there is no WP:SIGCOV that supercentenarians from Africa are notable as a group. The article also runs afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST since it is being used to house a WP:SYNTH of the GRG's data tables in a format they apparently don't want to take the time to create or manage themselves. It should be noted that there is only one source in this article under WP:GNG, since all six citations are to the same group. It should also be noted the article was recreated by banned editor User:Waenceslaus. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been AFD'd thrice before and has been kept all three times. The main reasons cited for the retention in the last discussion are reasons (such as the fact all the other continents have equivalent lists) that are still valid. -- John M Wolfson (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Your assertions are entirely untrue. The article was deleted twice before and neither North America nor Asia have continent level articles either. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I only checked the third nomination. However, with the third nomination some of the main arguments for retention was that the GRG had become a reliable source and that all the other continents have similar lists. (Which they technically do, although I agree that North American and Asian articles leave much to be desired, the latter being a redirect to a Japan's list.) Given that these facts still hold, and that at least a couple of other continents and other such geographic areas as countries have similar lists that are uncontroversial, my Keep vote stands. -- John M Wolfson (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, it seems that some of those arguments were advanced by the discredited User:Waenceslaus. Having said that, from what I understand "List of supercentenarians from Geographic Area X" articles do tend to be notable, and Africa is an obvious choice for a geographic area. It also doesn't have any more-obvious sub-areas (like Asia w/ Japan or North America w/ the US) to compile such a list. I also don't think it's a SYNTH violation, given WP:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information, although I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and can be mistaken. Sorry for double posting, but I just wanted to state my position a bit more clearly. --John M Wolfson (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revising your argument after realizing your mistake. You have put a lot more thought into your posts when proven incorrect at first then most people do. The actual List of North American supercentenarians page was eliminated [1] via a redirect to the page you listed above, as was the Asian list to the Japanese list. So those continent pages don't exist anymore as standalone articles like this one presently does. The main issue with this article is WP:LISTN for their isn't WP:SIGCOV in third party sources demonstrating that African supercentenarians as a group are a notable topic. Sources such as the Washington Post or the BBC don't ever cover this topic, which please note is separate from individuals getting some coverage. Articles like this were created by people from the GRG and longevity fans (User:Waenceslaus was someone affiliated with the GRG - if you look at the second nomination, the now Wikipedia banned GRG head Robert Young edited under Ryoung122). This and a great many other longevity articles were created by people either as a hobby or with an off-wiki agenda like free hosting and distribution of the GRG's data. This has famously (at least in this project) been a source of numerus battles over the years as such articles are attempted to be rooted out and offending editors get banned. The topic of African SC's as a group is simply not notable with reliable sources and even if some other continents rightly or wrongly have articles, each article by policy must stand or fall on its own merits. This one falls. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. After some more thought I've decided to change my vote to Redirect per Frayæ. --John M Wolfson (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discriminating against the entire continent of Africa would be systemic bias contrary to WP:NPOV. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither North America nor Asia have continent articles like this anymore so how is there bias against Africa in getting rid of this article? Your keepist argument is blatantly false and is of no substance in this AfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The North American equivalent is Lists of North American supercentenarians. I'm not sure what's happened to the Asian equivalent but we clearly need something similar there too. The problem is clearly that people keep trying to delete this stuff and so it's then hard to get a stable and sensible structure. See WP:INSPECTOR. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the actual North American article was redirected to that disambiguation page via [1] and the Asian page was redirected here [2] because almost every person on it was Japanese, so it was pointlessly redundant. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two incomplete lists (as stated in the article) supported by only one source. Can't be kept in its current status, and either way it screams original research. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 08:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is clearly part of a set covering the globe. As there is no duplication of coverage this selective deletion attempt does appear to be systemic bias as Africa would become the only region not listed. The corresponding lists in other regions are much the same. For reference the other corresponding list sourced in the same way are; Europe, Oceania, South America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States. Perhaps a group nomination should be considered, otherwise it is notable as part of an overall set of notable lists. I have decided on another option. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to avoid deletion. By policy, each and every article on Wikipedia must stand or fall on its own merits. Whether other pages should or should not exist has no bearing on this discussion. The corresponding North America and Asia list articles were both redirected so there is clearly not any discrimination going on either. Also, many of the entries on these two lists are found on other lists so there is duplication. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will create a new list. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a policy based argument as to why this particular article should be kept? Thank you. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it meets WP:NOTESAL as a valid list per WP:LISTPURP. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. There are no reliable third party sources (not even the GRG) that demonstrate through WP:SIGCOV that African supercentenarians as a group are a notable topic. It utterly fails WP:NOTESAL. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable. I have stuck my vote after writing a new list. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have editorially merged all remaining continental lists of supercentenarians into List of supercentenarians by continent. That includes this article. I recommend a redirect to preserve attribution. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Frayae. » Shadowowl | talk 13:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN as no sources discuss or demonstrate "<continent> supercentenarians" is a notable topic. All six references go to GRG tables which while doing nothing to demonstrate notability as they are just a big bunch of names in a table, also don't have any continental lists on their website. Will also point out most of the arguments from the previous AFD centered on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL and there was also clearly some canvassing from the 110 club forum. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CommanderLinx. The current sources only confirm that the topic exists, not that it is any way notable or encyclopedic (at least by Wikipedia's standards). WP:N requires that the topic itself be covered in multiple, non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources in order to demonstrate its notability, which is not the case here. If there were news articles, scientific studies, etc. on the topic of African supercentenarians, then I might !vote keep, but as it stands, I do not see any. Canadian Paul 21:44, 25 September 2018 (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.