Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living centenarians

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of living centenarians[edit]

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

Redundant content fork of Lists of centenarians. As opposed to List of living supercentenarians, which in itself is a questionable list, but only has ~150 people at any time, there are literally hundreds of thousands of them (according to one estimate, 450,000), 99% of which are not notable per WP:GNG. If we're just talking about notable centenarians, then this is already adequately covered by the above lists. Canadian Paul 02:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR, indiscriminate list, cannot be maintained or is otherwise redundant with existing articles.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per CP. Lugnuts (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though made in good faith, the premises of the nomination aren't correct. The list is not redundant to Lists of centenarians, which has separate lists of musicians, politicians, athletes, etc. who, for the most part, died after the age of 100 (though there are some on there who are still alive); and it's limited to those persons who (a) have articles on Wikipedia ("for reasons other than their longevity") (b) are over the age of 100 and (c) are still alive, so there's no merit to the suggestion that there will be "literally hundreds of thousands" of people on the list. There seems to be no objection to the concept of lists of notable centenarians in general. Mandsford 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've worked on these lists for over two years, so know all about what these lists contain, including that every person on the living list is somewhere in the others. They aren't intended to cover mainly dead people, it's just the majority of notable people in history who have reached the age of 100 are dead now. As for the notability, I must have missed that sentence in the intro, which is strange given that it's copied from the other pages. but that's a good start. I liken this to List of NHL players... we have all the names of NHL players in separate lists, and then sub-articles based on defining characteristics of players. All of these divisions, with the potential exception of List of players who played only one game in the NHL, are not transient characteristics. All NHL players were alive at one time and all will eventually be dead, so it's irrelevant to being a NHL player. The same goes here... being alive or dead is trivial, in the sense that it is irrelevant to their notability (whereas, for example, being a Middle Eastern hockey player is a relatively rare occurrence, so it may be argued that their ethnic background is relevant to their career... not that I would, but I can see how it would be). Anyways, I know, WP:WAX et al., but I just wanted to clarify something I felt was lacking in my rationale. Canadian Paul 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it trivial, particularly with someone up in the years. When one is talking about a famous and elderly person, there is an interest in verifying that the person is alive and well. For whatever reason, people are uncomfortable about not being certain whether someone is still alive, and feel even more uncomfortable about admitting to their uncertainty by asking that question. One might see Bob Newhart on TV or on film and wonder, "Is he still living?" (he's 80, and yes, he's still alive); one might see Betty White in a TV show alongside Bea Arthur, Estelle Getty and Rue McClanahan -- we know Betty is alive and well, but are the others... no, no and (relatively recently), no. I think that interest would be even stronger with well-known people who have reached 100, since there's that expectation that they could be gone very suddenly. In this instance, I think there's even more of the learning experience in, "Geez, I didn't know they were THAT old". Mandsford 00:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having this list all in one place can be helpful for research. Yes, the information -- at least each individual piece of it -- is redundant with the other lists, but so what? There are plenty of data which appear in more than one place. But this is the only page which can answer the question about which notable living people have reached the age of 100. Ma^t_chups 01:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma^t_chups 01:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the predecessor of this list was split it was nearly 200k which led to prompts for its deletion on the basis of being too large! Resurrecting it is not feasible for that reason. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 13:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Open-ended, constantly changing, sourcing issues galore. This might make fodder for a swell dedicated website, but this list is the most ephemeral thing imaginable, since deaths and additions are a daily occurrence. Comically incomplete. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite a daily occurrence when it comes to notable people. There aren't that many notable persons who will be turning 100 years old this year, see 1910#Births. The living ones are the ones that don't have "d." and a year. Sourcing is a no-brainer-- many biographies include the date of birth, and there's a time-tested mathematical formula for determining how old a person is. Hang in there, Dorothea Tanning, we're all rootin' for ya. Mandsford 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hard to maintain is not a reason to delete, all of Wikipedia is hard to maintain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its repetitive list, completely agree with Canadian Paul's Argument --Tommieboi (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're not going to run out of paper. It makes sense to have lists separated in a way that users would find useful. One of those is by reason of notability, and another important one is by living/deceased. I also agree with many of Mandsford's points. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2010 (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.