Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian supercentenarians (2nd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian supercentenarians[edit]

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

Human longevity articles have a serious problem with gross list cruft, and this is a prime example. There's exactly one notable person on this list, and her notability is enough for an article but very minor. There is established precedent that just staving off death for an atypically long time does not make a person notable, and there is no reason that a group of unrelated people in a given geographical area whose only similar characteristic is attaining the same should be treated any differently. Furthermore, there are no actual third-party sources (i.e. sources besides the Gerontology Research Group) which discuss the topic of supercentenarians in Belgium. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic which is part of a bigger scheme. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem is that the sources and good material is spread out over dozens of userpages. User:Scarface181268 (up for deletion at MFD like so many others) has a few references that should be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole point is that (most of) these people are not notable enough for their own article - however, as the longest-lived people from a geographical area, they are of interest. You also don't seem to understand the value of keeping track of people at the upper limit of human longevity. Your comment that "just staving off death for an atypically long time does not make a person notable" oversimplifies things. That's like saying that the world's tallest people are not of note because "they're just people whose heads are atypically high above the ground". - Ollie231213 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say that about tall people too; we don't have List of tallest people from India or other such articles for that reason. I'm not saying there's necessarily no place for this information, but having 40 standalone lists for individual countries doesn't make sense. To me, that seems more like an argument to restructure List of European supercentenarians so that it contains each individual country; I think that would be a fine outcome as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical location is a prominent factor when it comes to longevity - for example, things like climate, diet, and healthcare systems of countries will affect the prevalence of supercentenarian cases, so listing supercentenarians by countries is of interest. On the other hand, geographical location is of less importance when it comes to the prevalence of very tall people. But even so, the fact that there are no "List of tallest people from country X" articles is not an argument for deleting this one. With regards to your suggestion about merging existing articles with List of European supercentenarians - I would not totally opposed to that as there are some articles - such as List of Lithuanian supercentenarians - which don't seem to have enough content in them to warrant an entire article. That's not to say I believe that all articles should be merged. - Ollie231213 (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair; some of these countries are obviously a lot larger than others. This is one that's on the fence in that regard, but it seems at leats plausible for it to be merged to a hypothetically restructured list. That said, our article on human height would suggest that external factors account for a lot as well, so I'm not 100% on the logic above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 25 December 2014 (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.