Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unverified longevity claims

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. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unverified longevity claims[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because there has been no discussions of moving the original page on Longevity claims to here. 98% of the information on the "copy cat" page originated from Longevity claims. Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be a disagreement on what to include in Longevity claims... [1]. I'm curious about where people stand on the question of that other 2%, which was added right before the spinoff. The article went from 103KB to 116KB, down to 23KB, then back up to 103KB, and there don't seem to be any hostile exchanges, so maybe this can become a moot point. Gee, I wish I'd bought some stock when it was priced at 23. Mandsford 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided My first reaction was that WP is for verified information so the article seems so wrong. On the other hand who is to say that the claims themselves are not notable? The article does present the information well for people who might be interested and it is well sourced and presented. Somehow I just can't bring myself to vote to keep. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - personally, I don't think we should have this information at all; it seems to me a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. But in any case, these tables are all duplicated in Longevity claims, so even if we want to keep the information there's really no need for a separate article. Robofish (talk) 22:28, 15 February 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.