Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who are nearly 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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who are nearly centenarians

See also the debate on List of people who are nearly supercentenarians, also on AfD. A list of people who are nearly notable (and I don't consider centenarians notable) is, to me, a bad thing, setting aside the fact that this list is pretty unmaintainable and often difficult to verify or complete. Delete. Lord Bob 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable in any way. chowells 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete list of potentially millions - nay billions if we stretch "nearly" - of people. Rd232 ^talk 19:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but make sure it's fully deleted. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it was "List of notable people who..." then maybe, but it would impossible to include everyone in the world that fit that the criteria for that list. --Holderca1 20:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Centenarians already exists for people who actually are centenerians, and that's good enough for me on that front. Lord Bob 20:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Centenarians are not inherently notable. Even if they were, all that would justify would be articles about individual centenarians. A list is a separate matter, which requires answers of "yes" to two questions: "Should this list be compiled?" and "Can this list be compiled according to an objective, non-arbitrary, and binary criterion?". Answer to the first question is "no", which makes the second question irrelevant. The list doesn't belong, delete it. The Literate Engineer 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Pointless list. 23skidoo 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable list. Xoloz 02:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. As pointless as other listcruft. Why not start a list on people who are considering hair plugs??? Stu 02:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Chick Bowen 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - this would be sufficiently notable if the only persons on the list were certain to become centenarians by the time I finish typing this sentence (in which case, there's no use for the list anymore).
  ^talk
  03:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preposterous listcruft. MCB 04:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Nearly" is a relative term. It might as well be "List of people who are not centenarians". Ridiculous. TheMadBaron 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia list, being nearly 100 years old doesn't make you notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - there are thousands (millions?) in this category. It would also be unmaintainable having to be updated once a member of the list hit 100. --MacRusgail 13:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly defined, and there's no prizes 97 not out. Flowerparty■ 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Unlike the absurd list of people who are nearly supercentenarians this one is supposed to be restricted to people who merit inclusion based on their accomplishments,and it serves to keep people out of the over-bloated Centenarian article until they belong there.I think it was created to take some people with overestimated ages out of that article.Obscure entries should be deleted,but the list itself shouldn't.--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 19:35, 27 October 2005 (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.