Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disputed supercentenarian claimants

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. This is a close one. But at the end of the day, the combination of BLP and notability issues makes this result in "delete." The assertion that disputed claims are as "interesting" and "widely reported" as undisputed ones is not supported by evidence. The Robert Young quote is not really enough to establish the notability of the concept. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed supercentenarian claimants[edit]

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

Seems like a BLP minefield with no great benefit or purpose. Many are non-notable people without bios. Even those with bios, are often private people, with a wee bit of transitory notice for the singular issue of their age. And what is the magical significance of 110? Even if this could be fixed, it won't be maintained properly. Even if it's maintained properly, what's the benefit of it? Rob (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is indeed a BLP minefield with little to no benefit.Griswaldo (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-stated nomination. And we should consider removing supercentenarian as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and only weak, because it's probably covered elsewhere in our 110 articles about people who have reached the age of 110. Keep, however, because it's well-sourced, a rare quality in a Wikipedia article. If not, then remove the unsourced or questionably sourced content. I doubt that a nomination of supercentenarian will go far. Regarding comments about deleting the whole thing because it's a "BLP minefield", the "L" stands for "living", and only the 30 or so persons listed at the top are alive. I tend to agree that WP:BLP would apply to the living ones-- the inclusion of their names on the list is a statement that they are liars; worse yet, the accusations seem to come from websites rather than published sources. Not all of this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Opinions that the whole thing is of no benefit are just that, opinions. Mandsford 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Agree with HW, as well. Longevity is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN and the ArbCom decision on the topic seems to have motivated more, rather than less, WP:OWN edits. I'm heartened to see the more-experienced editors forseen by the ArbCom decision taking an interest. Deleting this most egregious of the non-compliant articles, with its multiple WP:BLP issues, would be a good place to start to bring longevity articles into compliance with the basic wikipedia collaborative editing paradigm, and help experts learn where their input is helpful, and where their valuable time and energy might better be spent on the new Wikia project AMK has started, and/or Citizendium, which more closely fits their editorial style and norms. David in DC (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disputed claims of longevity are as interesting as the undisputed ones, are as widely reported and therefore as notable, verifiable and as reliably sourced. So keep. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article shows individuals that a large number of people who claim to be 110 or older, generally 115 or more, are "99% false [115+ claimants]," according to Robert Young, Senior Claims Investigator. Little do you guys know that this is an important article. Less people will fall for the 130-year-old Georgian woman, for example, whom a lot of people say that she is the oldest in the world. Though, there has been no sources online mentioning a younger age (including WOP). Though I won't be able to post any more of them here, I still agree that it is a great link, in my opinion. It will always remain that way. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole concept of supercentenarian, specifically when applied to an article like this, is an arbitrary one. Why is, say for example, someone who is actually 102 claiming to be 111 a notable piece of information while, say for example, someone who is actually 102 claiming to be 109 not a notable piece of information? A large amount of the article is poorly sourced to self-published sources in addition. O Fenian (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the exception of families who've got such 'disputed' claiments, few people are concerned about such things. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That must be why the media never reports them. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only true WALLEDGARDEN article on Wikipedia is Hortus conclusus. Generally the term is simply used by non-afficionados of something (say, perhaps you don't like WP:ROYALTY or Babylon 5) as a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In which case I have the perfect counterargument: WP:ILIKEIT. S B H arris 00:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I witnessed several accounts on articles, such as List of living supercentenarians or List of oldest living people by nation, where the WOP sources were removed, but the case still remained. That would be the better route here for this article. (Gosh for bid) let's remove all WOP sources on here to make you all happy and to wait until the list is updated by Dr. Coles, or Robert Young. Many articles on Wikipedia have unsourced material that remain for months at a time. There is no need to jump the gun and remove the article. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:43, 12 March 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.