Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 December 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of African supercentenarians

)

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

References:
Fringe-theory noticeboard, WikiProject discussion

Wholly redundant with other articles, in that every name appears in other more basic articles, primarily the deaths-by-year articles and the

List of European supercentenarians

too but I believe it should be double-checked for 100% redundancy first.

Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the

WP:V

.

The GRG links do not demonstrate that the topic "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is notable; no such continental list occurs anywhere to my knowledge except in WP as a trivia review. A rationale that such data need multiple presentation methods fails because the presentation methods themselves are OR (nobody else uses such methods) and because of undue weight. Redirects are contraindicated because there are no targets and because they would perpetuate the OR.

Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that
WP:TNT is better: sparseness of fill leading to too short a list to be notable as a list, in a possible attempt to list every supercentenarian up to three times (by death date, country/continent, and in a bio: undue weight), when the proper approach is to list each notable one once in a small set of list articles (and then to let growth accrue only due to notability and sourcing). Sort by age is wholly OR as if "5th oldest African emigrant" occurs anywhere in the world but this article. COI and walled-garden problems in project (primary editor NickOrnstein is sometimes OK to work with but is spinning his wheels very unnecessarily, keeping this article precisely synched with the others and the GRG pages). Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113. JJB
05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, decent article and is relatively important. It is referenced (although more sources are needed) and is part of a series of articles.

Talk to the hand, or my user talk page...

Which one of the two articles do you mean? What are your sources for the idea that "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is important? Did you notice that all of the references point to the same group and not to multiple reliable sources? Did you notice that everything in both articles appears in other articles on this topic? Thank you. JJB 04:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Most importantly, reliance on GRG list, which is not a
WP:NOR, and bias against unverified Africans and South Americans David in DC (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (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) 00:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Seems like a standard almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you show a reliable source listing only verified African supercentenarians? If there is none, such a presentation of multiply-redundant data is
  WP:UNDUE. JJB
  17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep - better a list than individual articles in most of these cases.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Milo, that is a false dilemma, we're not asking about list vs. bios, we're asking about list vs. no list. All the listed items appear in other articles in WP. Would you mind nominating the redundant bios for deletion please? JJB 17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and for failing notability and verifiability. Lacks reliable sources needed to verify claims. Still, I agree that a list is better than individual articles. Sources other than GRG are needed. There is a very long track record in the world of spurious claims of longevity, the more so when birth records and other documentation the individual is really that old are lacking. Edison (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Edison did not notice Milowent's false dilemma, I should repeat that all entries in both list articles appear in other lists in WP, usually repeatedly, so even if "a list is better" it's not a deletion argument. While Capovilla should not be deleted by current observed notability standards, the two other bios linked from these articles (
  Julia Sinédia-Cazour and Daniel Guzman-Garcia) might be considered for deletion based on the implications of the last two commenters. Noting here for future reference. JJB
  20:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete due to the article having very little information, and is not able to find the oldest in the continent per year. A lot of cases are exaggerated by many years in this country. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be redundant and the arguments about sourcing/accuracy are compelling.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 25 November 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.