Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest people by year of birth

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest people by year of birth[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:LISTN as it has received no independent coverage in reliable sources: there are no sources out there discussing this particular data set. This list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of oldest people and certain years whose entries correspond with a single source: Gerontology Research Group (GRG) table Oldest validated centenarian by year. Ca2james (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Ca2james (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see doing mathematics or organizing a list in chronological order as original research. It is no different than what Guinness World Records presents in truncated form showing the living people, that we have at the bottom of the list. This is just a more complete version that includes the people who have died. Most of the links are blue aabnd the list serves as a navigation device to those articles. The chart is fully wikitable sortable, so it can be sorted on any field. It is by default sorted by year of birth and that is the title, if the title is bothersome, it can be changed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't whether the table is OR or sortable or whether it's like what Guinness has; the issue is whether the topic is notable and encyclopaedic. Having blue links in the table does not automatically makes it encyclopaedic, since any collection of Wikipedia articles will be blue-linked whether the collection is useful or trivial. Ca2james (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is the world's oldest people, and I don't think there's a plausible argument that topic isn't notable. This list just happens to present that information organized by birth year and doesn't magically become a new topic by virtue of that presentation and organization. A better question is how this list relates to other lists that appear to cover the same topic. postdlf (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below...apparently I've been confused as to what this list's topic is. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richard Arthur Norton's arguments. This is a useful and encyclopedic list. ABF99 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Delete Changing my !vote due to new info offered below by Calathan. Since many of the oldest people are not even listed here, it no longer seems so useful. ABF99 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a rehashed list of the (presumed) oldest people that could be further sorted by any database program by continent, sex, etc. Should not be (re)listed here in Wikipedia. Zezen (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a duplicate of List of the verified oldest people, which itself contains a birthdate column and is sortable? I'm having trouble figuring out why this needs to exist as a separate list, but maybe I'm missing something. @Zezen: is this basically your concern, or is there yet another list in Category:Lists of oldest people to which you think this one is redundant? postdlf (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two lists are very different. This one is a list of the oldest person born in each year, not a list of the oldest people ever. For example, Lucy Hannah and Marie-Louise Meilleur are the third and fourth oldest peoeple ever (according to List of the verified oldest people), but they don't appear on this list since Jeanne Calment and Sarah Knauss, the two oldest people ever, were born in the same years as them (1875 and 1880, respectively). There are also numerous people on this list who aren't on the List of the verified oldest people, since those people are the oldest person born in a certain year but not among the oldest people ever. This list has many people who are only about 100 years old, which wouldn't be even close to the cutoff for the list of oldest people ever. Calathan (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, that isn't at all clear from the list itself, and I think most of the commenters on both sides so far have also been confused by just what we were looking at. I'm inclined to take back my earlier comment to the nominator, as the subject of "oldest surviving person born in a particular year" is a different one than I thought we were dealing with. And while "oldest people alive" or "oldest people ever" is unquestionably a notable topic, I don't know that "oldest person born in year X" is, and that seems to slide us more into trivia. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should actually be called "List of the oldest centenarians born in each year". I don't think any official body other than the GRG keeps track of things like this. The GRG already has a table of validated ones,[1] as the nominator has pointed out. This table includes entries which that organization doesn't consider validated, which is another concern. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another rehash of what could be a single sorted table. EEng (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much substantial evidence that this is a topic covered in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, which therefore makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia per the notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 16:58, 22 September 2015 (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.