Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish centenarians

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Any decision in this case is bound to be unpopular, and the debate has gone on long past the usual seven days. I fully expect that a review will be sought. Some good points have been made by both sides, and closing deserves a longer explanation than usual. As noted by postdlf, "We have a whole category structure, Category:Centenarians by nationality, and nationality is the typical way any classification of people is first subdivided";. And, as noted by Clarityfiend, "There are various lists of centenarians, but lists by nationality are not among them, with this exception". Suggestions have been made that this should be trimmed to a list of Irish supercentenarians (per Edison), in that we have other lists of supercentenarians by nationality, although, as Yoenit points out, there are only two persons on the list over the age of 110. A suggestion has been made (and some change in the wording) to make this a list of Irish centenarians who are notable for something else besides being a centenarian. Ultimately, though, the question turns upon whether there should be lists of centenarians by nationality (this being the first one) in addition to the other lists of centenarians in a particular group. Although there is some support within this discussion for centenarians by nationality, there is not the wide support necessary for establishing such a precedent. I have no problem with allowing this to be userfied to someone's account. Mandsford 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish centenarians[edit]

List of Irish centenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion due to the lists being complete original research. There are no sources matching the lists. Ranks are made up, and there are several sections not needed, such as Individual Biographies. Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Routine calculations such as age calculation are not considered original research (WP:CALC). Ranking by age is also a routine calculation. Nearly all entries have a source (or dedicated article) which supports the age, birth and death dates given. Entries which can't be verified can be removed without having to resort to deletion of the entire article. Yoenit (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some editing and redefinition is needed if the article is to be kept. I am leaning toward deletion. It claims "centenarians in Ireland are as notable as supercentenarians in other countries" which is an overreaching claim so that persons under 110 can be included. Verified supercentenarians might be the basis for a list. Otherwise the floor is open for a listing of everyone in every country who claims to be over 100. Edison (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely missed that claim, which is indeed rather ridiculous. A list of verified Irish supercentarians would be nice, although rather short. However I see no reason why a list on notable (for something other than age) verified Irish centenarians could not exist as well. Yoenit (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being 100 years old is just not that remarkable, uncommon, or notable these days. It gets minimal courtesy coverage in the local paper. I have known several people 100 or older who were just plain folks, not noted by significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of Irish supercentenarians and trim. There are various lists of centenarians, but lists by nationality are not among them, with this exception. All or none, I say. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is actually the first time I see a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Why couldn't we start making lists of notable centenarians based on nationality? It is no more or less a trivial intersection then ranking them by profession. Yoenit (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because as explorers, businesspeople, etc., they made their mark for doing more than just continuing to breathe. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am repeating myself here, but once more: A list of notable centenarians who are Irish. I did not say anybody over 100 years of age could be included, only the people who are notable for some other reason. Yoenit (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The criterion is their age, not their accomplishments. Why are you so set on recognizing Irish centenarians? Should we also list 80-year-old Zimbabweans because they're probably just as rare? In military bios, the bar is set at the Medal of Honor; if you've got it, you're practically guaranteed of getting in, but a Distinguished Service Cross won't do it by itself. With age, the consensus is it's supercentenarians, not centenarians. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Calculating someone's age isn't original research ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is original research ranking these individuals. There could be tons of other cases out there. We can not just assume these positions. Irish supercentenarians doesn't seem all that bad to me. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a list of people notable for thing X, but grouped by thing Y, is a bad list. People should be grouped, listed, for the thing(s) they are notable for, not for a different reason. WP:NOTDIR, if you want a policy for it. Fram (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are innumerable lists that index biographical articles based on shared biographical facts, not the facts for which those people are notable. These include lists for places of origin, year of birth or death, alumni of educational institutions... So the fact that the organizing concept of this list is not the basis for the notability of its entries (i.e., they do not have articles because they are centenarians) is not recognized as a valid deletion rationale and is extraordinarily contrary to practice. postdlf (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this AFD does not cover any of the other Lists of centenarians, it could only result in deletion if it provided some valid rationale specific to this list that would not be true of all such centenarian lists. Complaints about the "rankings" or whatever used by this list are irrelevant, because that's a matter for editing; that does not cut against the very concept of listing notable Irish people who were centenarians.

    Apparently this is the only list of centenarians that is subindexed by nationality? (I'm asking; I don't know). We have a whole category structure, Category:Centenarians by nationality, and nationality is the typical way any classification of people is first subdivided; I think it's fair to say that -by nationality is presumptively encyclopedic. I have not yet seen a reason provided here why we should not subdivide the centenarian lists by nationality as well. postdlf (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: this is almost entirely based on original research. And per Fram: "a list of people notable for thing X, but grouped by thing Y, is a bad list." I've just copy-edited the page. One red flag is the repeated use of "notable" in the subheds. It ought not be there. If they're not notable, they shouldn't be here in the first place. Another is the wacky notion that, in Ireland, 100 = 110. I've requested a citation for that dubious assertion. Still another is the list of "Unverified" centenarians. Say what?! I've deleted the double entries for these four, leaving them under "Unverified" but deleting them from "Individual biographies." But what the heck are unverified entries doing on this list? WP:V is a pillar. Finally, this assertion does not reflect the way AfD's are supposed to work: "Given that this AFD does not cover any of the other Lists of centenarians, it could only result in deletion if it provided some valid rationale specific to this list that would not be true of all such centenarian lists." Ummm, we create, edit and delete articles around here one at a time. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a useful, or even valid, argument opposing deletion. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in this case. Any deletion argument should be evaluated based on its consequences when it would affect much more than just the content at hand, particularly when that content is part of a rather large, organized structure. And no, we don't always "create, edit and delete articles around here one at a time" as is illustrated by the blanket nomination of all the other centenarian lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (businessmen), which you have participated in. All of your other comments are complaints about inclusion criteria that are irrelevant to whether the list should be deleted, unless there are no notable individuals who are verifiably Irish and verifiably centenarians. Are all of the articles in Category:Irish centenarians in there by error? postdlf (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists, like categories, are supposed to be navigation tools, directing users to articles about notable subjects. They should not be a bootstrap method for accreting non-notable, longevity stub-cruft from a yahoo newsgroup into wikipedia nor a way to shoehorn original research from raw data maintained at sites like http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html into wikipedia, either.
We're working on longevity notability and sourcing guidance here. Help would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David in DC. This list is partly an original research grouping of non-notable people, and partly a bizarre intersection of two unrelated attributes: people notable for something other than longevity, who happen to have reached a particular age. Neither aspect meets the criteria for a list, and the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason for keeping this particular mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Irish_centenarians&oldid=1069103277"