Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 1

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by

Thanks. —

I have nominated

User:Pascar has recently been changing names to maiden names on a number of longevity pages with the reasoning here that the "same criterion for all supercentenarians, i.e. for all them maiden names" be applied. Is there any basis for this? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 01:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Folks, someone added navbox code to this article. The navbox should probably be put in a proper template and transcluded on the appropriate articles. Before I do that, does this exist as a template anywhere? I did a few searched but no relevant hits. Any ideas? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'd like to remove the POV word "honorary" from the "oldest person" titles navbox. The word "honorary", ironically, carries the connotation that someone didn't really 'earn' something (such as 'honorary degree') but was just recognized as such, a sort of system of flattery. To be honest, the titleholders have EARNED their title by living to be the age they did, and having documentation to prove it.

On the other hand, just because someone has the title doesn't mean they are an "honorable" person. So, I'd prefer a NPOV "titles".Ryoung122 23:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

At the talk page of

My proposal is at the article's talk page, and your input would be appreciated.

Hopefully, it'll be a long time before we have to implement any decision made, but I feel we need to discuss it - especially as someone specifically asked about it.

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Five proposals were made for what to do. If you would like to contribute with what you think should be done, the discussion is at Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I‎#Renewed: Discussion about what to do when the last veteran dies -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Any truth here? I guess it's not possible to verify and it's unlikely to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchitt (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to chip in, on a very temporary basis, to deal with the sad state of articles in relation to Biblical longevity, in that nothing like proper weighting or encyclopedic treatment is going on IMHO. I have begun by proposing, among other things, that longevity myths be renamed to "longevity narratives" or "longevity lore"; that better scopes be defined for that article and for what is almost a content fork, longevity claims; and that a simple navigation template "Biblical longevity" be created. I will also be doing some basic cleanup and sourcing and removal of POV.

A couple other concerns that I have (and this may simply be due to the project members having more experience with GRG than with WP) are that articles generally break self-reference and timelessness rules. Any breakdown that uses the word "this" (this list, this article), should be checked for whether it is

Anyway, please comment on my proposals here and/or at the "myths" talk. JJB 01:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am back to continue this process. Those favoring rename of "myths" appear to prefer "longevity traditions". Also that unclear scope definition and questionable 130 cutoff still need fixing. JJB 07:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's more than clear that you are simply biased in favor of Biblical myths. There's no scientific evidence that humans live to 950 now, or in the past. It's also clear that you are pushing an agenda. Go back to WorldNetDaily.Ryoung122 10:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

Could someone with more reputation then I have please make clear to MK5384 that Josef Kowalskis age is not verified? Thank you! --Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the World's Oldest People articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Massive things may be afoot at

There is now a merge proposal at Longevity myths to merge --> Longevity. Many of us who are not regulars at Longevity myths are of the opinion that the page is not encyclopedic and that relevant information ought to be saved elsewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Counterproposal: An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reposting something I've been barked at, off-wiki, for posting in the wrong place. Has

WP:AGF just been totally forgotten in this dispute?David in DC (talk

) 18:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David, although I don't think this is about misunderstanding the definitions of myth (as you may perhaps agree), it's about the fact that most (if not all) sources on this topic who use "myth" mean "falsehood" and we would not use them on this point via

WP:RNPOV even though we do have articles on creation and flood mythoi. Incidentally, the merge discussions were bogged down with misunderstandings, so I closed them as "no consensus action" and continued editing per my best judgment. It appears, however uncharitably, that the WikiProject members are more interested in (excuse me) rearranging deck chairs as the iceberg approaches; and I'm also disappointed that FTN editors do not seem to be concentrating on proper weighting of the topic set as a whole. C'est la vie. JJB

18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to chip in, on a very temporary basis, to deal with the sad state of articles in relation to Biblical longevity, in that nothing like proper weighting or encyclopedic treatment is going on IMHO. I have begun by proposing, among other things, that longevity myths be renamed to "longevity narratives" or "longevity lore"; that better scopes be defined for that article and for what is almost a content fork, longevity claims; and that a simple navigation template "Biblical longevity" be created. I will also be doing some basic cleanup and sourcing and removal of POV.

A couple other concerns that I have (and this may simply be due to the project members having more experience with GRG than with WP) are that articles generally break self-reference and timelessness rules. Any breakdown that uses the word "this" (this list, this article), should be checked for whether it is

Anyway, please comment on my proposals here and/or at the "myths" talk. JJB 01:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am back to continue this process. Those favoring rename of "myths" appear to prefer "longevity traditions". Also that unclear scope definition and questionable 130 cutoff still need fixing. JJB 07:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's more than clear that you are simply biased in favor of Biblical myths. There's no scientific evidence that humans live to 950 now, or in the past. It's also clear that you are pushing an agenda. Go back to WorldNetDaily.Ryoung122 10:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

Could someone with more reputation then I have please make clear to MK5384 that Josef Kowalskis age is not verified? Thank you! --Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the World's Oldest People articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Massive things may be afoot at

There is now a merge proposal at Longevity myths to merge --> Longevity. Many of us who are not regulars at Longevity myths are of the opinion that the page is not encyclopedic and that relevant information ought to be saved elsewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Counterproposal: An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reposting something I've been barked at, off-wiki, for posting in the wrong place. Has

WP:AGF just been totally forgotten in this dispute?David in DC (talk

) 18:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David, although I don't think this is about misunderstanding the definitions of myth (as you may perhaps agree), it's about the fact that most (if not all) sources on this topic who use "myth" mean "falsehood" and we would not use them on this point via

WP:RNPOV even though we do have articles on creation and flood mythoi. Incidentally, the merge discussions were bogged down with misunderstandings, so I closed them as "no consensus action" and continued editing per my best judgment. It appears, however uncharitably, that the WikiProject members are more interested in (excuse me) rearranging deck chairs as the iceberg approaches; and I'm also disappointed that FTN editors do not seem to be concentrating on proper weighting of the topic set as a whole. C'est la vie. JJB

18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2007 notability discussion seems to establish that most specific longevity records do not establish inherent notability. Even the oldest verified living person (note also subtle difference with oldest recognized living person), listed at Template:Oldest people for holders since 1955, does not confer notability to everyone listed. It is clear that some persons can be retained for notability other than supercentenarianism (Buffalo Soldier Mark Matthews). But it's also clear that consensus favors creating some more reliable guidance (toward delete, merge/redirect, or keep) than previously agreed on, and this is the page to do it. I start by noting the common outcomes shown in the majority of the above 2007 cases are that a couple of longevity-only sources will get you deleted, and a handful of them will get you merged and redirected. Specifically:

• The first five supercentenarian cases above were kept, but they appear exceptions to this idea because the discussion had just gotten started; Mueller and Page may be deletable or mergeable on review, along with later cases like Bidwell, Greene, Hannah, Keith, Watkins (and potential 2008-10 cases) which have only essentially the basic longevity-group sources.
• Graham has the same problems of having only basic longevity-group sources, but has the additional problem that the "keep" close does not appear to be valid, suggesting
  WP:DRV
  .
• Baines clearly passes
  WP:GNG
  on five very mainstream sources and several longevity sources, indicating many more; similarly for Hardy and Knauss (and maybe McMorran), which have much mainstream coverage.
• It is clear that by 2007-12-10, AFD nominators (mostly BrownHairedGirl) had gotten enough feel for consensus as to nominate reliably for result of either deletion or redirection, with only one exception. I would propose that criteria similar to the above should be reratified, namely, that the article should be kept only if there are many unquestionable sources, merged if there are a few questionable and longevity-group sources, and deleted if there are only a couple.
• Naturally, as to still-open discussion on Goossenaerts, I find these data to support my position of "delete or redirect", recognizing there are other POVs. Decision should be made on sourcing rather than on "one of several unverified claimants for oldest living man in Europe". When sourcing is limited to mirrors of one wire story that quotes GRG, plus one or more older Belgian-only sources of uncertain provenance (the primary one being a political party), the notability falls somewhere between delete and redirect as per the above outcomes. However, this is only the current and immediate application of what ought to be a wider principle. JJB 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jan Goossenaerts has now been kept by closer Mandsford, contrary to this logic, I anticipate that the keepers will all come over here to help create some consensus about the general deletion principles different from the logic above that indicates a merge for Jan G. If they should fail to do so, why, the project consensus would remain toward merge at this page, and would force a merge and overthrow the nonconsensus at the AFD for which they fought so hard. Great. Jump in, guys, and show us why the above

The subject of my tongue-in-cheek "anticipation" has not materialized. I know very few of the active topic-area editors seem to want to contribute to this page, but I will test the

WP:SILENT consensus with another round of deletion recommendations, at which point I "anticipate" objectors will comment here. That proposal, accepted silently so far, is that supercentenarian articles may be deleted or merged to lists if they have only local notability and heavy GRG advocacy evident in the sources. It appears that this was also done for many of the 2007 AFDs, so it is not just a one-man silent consensus, but it needs to be restoked. JJB

22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The second problem is that you are taking advantage of sub-standard article creations to create a standard that is too tight, and in fact contradictory. We saw articles such as Nyleptha Roberts with a lot of coverage and sourcing, yet you campaigned to have it deleted, anyway. This is a sort of a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario that is flatly unacceptable.

Third, there seems to be a problem with list-fanaticism. It's important to have statistics, but just as we have biographies for baseball players, not just their batting stats, so it's important to have background biographies on supercentenarians as well.

Some of the problems are delineating "how notable" someone has to be, to be notable for age. Right now, you are guilty of overpruning, something that was done in 2007 as well. Other years, like 2006, 2008, 2009, etc. may have seen overexpansion...but often the problem is not that the articles couldn't be notable, but that someone just started a stub and left it.

Ryoung122 05:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The solution is to thrash out here a consensus on notability. There is a general notability guideline. There is a guideline for biographies. Some WikiProjects have extra guidance, e.g.

WP:PROF. IMHO the biography notability guideline covers all the bases, but if anyone thinks biographies of long-lived people are a special case, then this is the time and the place to say why, and to propose specific criteria. Itsmejudith (talk

) 10:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring attention to

WP:N is met. In short: having a specific, perhaps limited, audience is not grounds for the deletion of an article. SiameseTurtle (talk

) 18:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Robert! Thanks for providing such a moderate summary that I actually thought someone else had written it: the only presentation issue is that you still need to work on

WP:INDENTs

. To your first, if you do have three independent sources on birthday, becoming oldest national, and death, I would probably use a merge template rather than an AFD (although 3 is right at the borderline and source quality would be a factor); none of my nominations had anything like three independent sources. I am generally in favor of stub templates also, but in this area there has been such rampant standards failure, and such time for providing sources that hasn't happened, that there comes a time sooner or later to make an AFD list and give proponents just one more week to find sources. I find it odd that, in eight or more of my nominations, the whole week passed and not a single new source was cited from any proponent. "Expandability" must be proven by explicit reference to extant sources and stated intent to insert, which can then be rebutted if the insertion does not materialize in a long period ("100 days"?).

I'm not sure why you'd accuse me of recentism when I am deleting recent articles and was expanding coverage of supercentenary claims prior to 1900 (some of which you wanted deleted or flagged, in Prichard and Custance). There was also no language bias, although I noted that by the standards I used (maximum one reliable source) there was a higher proportion of Japanese cases, but I attributed that to apparent weaker creation habits on the Japanese articles. Again, reliable independent sourcing would change that.

Second, the standard (

WP:GNG

) is as tight as everywhere else on WP. I do not use contradictory standards, and I did not prod Nyleptha, I only procedurally started the AFD after you objected to David's prod. I recall Nyleptha had one reliable source and one bio from her last home, the latter of which provided most of the article. In general, a care-home newsletter is not a reliable source or a mark of notability, although it may be useful in supplementing reliable sources; when the article is essentially based on that source then notability has not been shown (as consensus demonstrated). I would agree that if I were playing heads-I-win it would be unacceptable, but in fact I am using consistent standards in my own nominations, although procedural nominations that I've carried out for others may have been begun with different standards than mine (particularly Jan G., on which my position changed from delete to merge).

Incidentally, even if you don't like the standards of other deleters, you can always recreate the article with additional independent reliable sources not found during AFD! So you have remedy already if you choose to use it, even if noms are truly contradictory or misguided.

Third, I am not a list fanatic just because I'm deleting bios this week; I helped Nick nominate seven lists, all of which were deleted IIRC. Again, right now I'm deleting solely on patent GNG failure. There are also way too many lists still; in baseball, we have secondary reliable sources who make the same lists for every single statistic that WP contains. In longevity, there is simply no reliable source making a list of successive oldest person in Belgium of whatever, not even GRG in most cases. BHG created an excellent compromise by moving minibios to list articles, and that is fine for merge consensus, although not for delete consensus of course.

In short, Robert, please read the current (growing-consensus) guidelines at

WP:WOP#Notability and sourcing, because you haven't said anything contrary to them, although I grant you have voiced suspicions that some of them have been broken. If you can agree with those guidelines as stated, or if you can discuss changes to them with such continuing coherence as you are demonstrating, why, we might be finally making headway. JJB

19:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/heraldtribune/obituary.aspx?n=ruth-r-clark&pid=146992036

However, when we see article coverage go worldwide, then there is an argument for notability. Thus, Harry Patch is notable because coverage extends outside the local area:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/25/AR2009072502036.html

Thus, the media can choose exceptions, based on war service, or other reasons

2. Second, we should generally recognize as notable:

--persons recognized as the world's oldest person (unless no significant sourcing exists) --persons recognized as the world's oldest man (unless no significant sourcing exists) --persons aged 114+ or top-100 all-time (sometimes, finishing second is notable...Sammy Sosa hit 66 home runs in 1998, to use the baseball analogy)

3. Third, if someone is not quite notable on a world scale, but was the oldest person in the nation and there was biographical material available, they should have their mini-bio on the "list of (nation X)".

This is self-limiting: believe it or not, world's oldest persons don't die every day. On average, dating to 1955, the world's oldest person keeps the title for 1.12 years. That's not too much coverage.

Mini-bios are important, as they include human-interest (why are we interested in WWI veterans?). Some coverage, for example Japan's oldest persons (Ura Koyama) should meet the "notability" guideline, but whoever created the article didn't bother to make a full-fledged article. In cases like that, they can be merged for the time being. If the article is later expanded, it can be un-merged.

Remember, the mini-bio solution was SUGGESTED BY WIKIPEDIA. It should be kept, but only for those who meet a certain standard (oldest in the nation or in some exceptional cases, second-oldest...for example, if someone was 115 and second-oldest in the USA). In that case, a 114+ line or perhaps a top-100 line would work.

Ryoung122 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good start, and I apologize for not seeing it before commenting on a draft at #Notability; but language is fuzzy. Particularly: 1. Generally nonlocal (e.g. international) coverage confers notability, but only with a plurality of independent RSs; two might still get you merged, but three very good ones would be enough for an article most of the time. Your statement may hint you want notability on the first nonlocal source, which is not what GNG says. 2. There has been no demonstration of inherent notability (apart from general notability) in this area (that demonstration should appear in a plurality of independent RSs per my comments at #Notability). However, your point is again formally correct, if we don't argue about what "significant" sourcing means and agree it is a summary of GNG. 3. Yes, I agree with minibios, when there are only a handful of local sources and not much nonlocal. So in short, the next direct step is for you to add any clarifying language to the project page section, for further discussion. But there's a more important step you can take.

Fuzziness may still get us in trouble. Ura Koyama, your example, has ONE reliable source (plus OHB): the Memphis Commercial Appeal, presumably "reliable" but not "significant" either in audience or in size (two sentences on Koyama), and certainly not "sources" plural. For you to continue suggesting that there is something to merge that's not already in the Japanese list (beyond "lived in Iizuka and died of pneumonia", hardly encyclopedic) indicates that even if you tacitly agree with GNG you may still unconsciously act against it. If your conclusion is really as you state, you should change your AFD comment from "keep or merge" to "merge", and take the responsibility for merging the one clause yourself, and then I might change my policy-based "delete" to "merge" as well. If you do not do these two very simple things, you belie your statement that Koyama "can be merged", which indicates that the fuzziness is not helping us.

The situation is more problematic in my batch of 9 other AFDs. Here you have up to 6 people commenting "keep" with not a single one providing any sources (besides Siamese in 2 cases), when all 9 articles have only one reliable source (or fewer). If you really agree with GNG, you should vote to delete 7 or all 9 articles. Whatever of your categories above they fall into, they don't have sources and you have not provided them. This WikiProject has less than 200 articles, and many of them have failed GNG for many years, and nobody can get around to fixing them all this time, and when they start getting nommed you think you need more time beyond a week or two to document everything when your project has already had years? (And you have a history of asking for time, 100 days here, 30 days there, and not using it?) No, the right thing to do is delete and let the editors come back when they have a plurality of independent RSs. So whatever the specifics, in the 9 cases I mentioned you have voted only "keep", contrary to everything you and everyone else has said on this page.

I should add my comfort that you're at least retreating from more adhoc arguments to more consistent arguments, but that does not change the fact you have no consensus for the arbitrary consistencies you choose that are contrary to policy.

Look, these AFDs are expiring soon. You have a brief opportunity, with one comment here, to cut through a narrow region of the divide and shake hands with me. All you need to do is affirm GNG as stated (and of course

WP:V, which says others must be able to verify the sources). Without two independent RSs, there has never been hope of retention on WP. 7 of the 9 AFDs have never had two independent RSs, and the jury's still out on the other 2 because we only have one editor proposing bare AFD links not furthered by that editor. You could just agree "delete now and we'll rebuild when we can find the sources", which believe it or not IS the simplest path to improvement. You could just suggest "merge now without prejudice to deleting other AFDs that fail GNG" on two articles, or more than that. You could suggest "relist another week to permit all parties to seek sources". But policy does not allow "merge all bios no matter how unsourced", nor "keep all bios because they have reached an unverifiable record or originally-researched benchmark". Your language above permits the former compromises; your language elsewhere suggests the latter entrenchments. If you can find yourself admitting one of these compromises now, by your providing a statement below, I will do all the clerical (not source-finding) work for you, to alleviate your time concerns, and we will declare the consensus to have been reached, for codification at the project page section. But if you find yourself sticking to the entrenched nonpolicy positions, my AFD summaries will need to note that you have skipped the opportunity to build consensus and that the closes should be based on the best argument (GNG failure not resolved by any editor), and your missed opportunity will of course be further evidence of antipolicy disruption rather than encyclopedia-building. But your choice. JJB

20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredulous that Asa Takii, reported to be the oldest person in Japan at her death and the oldest survivor of the A-bombing of Hiroshima, is being treated so callously.Ryoung122 19:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredible that an experienced editor and wordsmith like User:Ryoung122 does not know how to use the word "incredulous". Since he's announced, in response to a deadline in an ArbCom case to which he is a party, that he's unavailable until after December 15, and since someone using his account has posted a number of things already today, some of them quite intemperate, the question arises: Has someone hijacked our friend and colleague's account? David in DC (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

R's comments do not seem to relate to common deletion outcomes, except by indirect implication, which I do not believe I would treat justly if I were to attempt to divine it. JJB 23:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have drafted a policy proposal for

Per Itsmejudith at mediation, I agree that this project needs to thrash out notability guidelines among the editors who have conflicting broad and narrow inclusion criteria. My base proposal would be as follows (and I will be taking silence as consensus): — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

You should strike the above remark as an example of an abuse of Wiki-etiquette. "Silence" does NOT equal consensus, especially when you did not inform others about your post.

However, I do agree we need to come up with a general policy regarding individual supercentenarian and even centenarian biographies, when those persons are noted for age.Ryoung122 04:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

1. A supercentenarian claim is a reliably sourced statement that reasonable people believe some human to have been over 110 years old.
2. All supercentenarian claims are notable for inclusion in lists; these lists include:
   • List of living supercentenarians
     .
   • The various "deaths by year" articles listed at Template:Longevity.
   • When claims are controverted by other evidence of an exact age under 110, List of disputed supercentenarian claimants.
   • For uncontroverted unverified claims,
     Longevity traditions
     (demarcation and subscopes being discussed).
3. Individual bio articles are notable if some major interest and coverage is available beyond being age 110. ADD: Bios with the barest coverage (two RSs or so) can be single paragraphs in list articles.
4. Other list articles are notable if similar lists occur in reliable independent sources.
5. All other longevity-article notability should be determined by consensus, such as those reliant only on GWR, GRG, WOP, and OHB.

JJB 15:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

#3 seems a bit vague. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of various WikiProjects, the notability guidelines should concentrate on individual articles, and only when those are agreed turn to the question of lists. So I'm only commenting for now on article notability.

I think that this project can agree that people currently living, or who have lived, to over 110 will usually be notable enough to merit a biography. Not simply because of their age, but because there is likely to be independent coverage. That goes against my !vote on

Jan Goossenaerts - I might change it - the point is that we need to thrash out a consistent policy here. Where the age is in doubt or it has been positively disproved that the person lived past 110, then notability is entirely dependent on the extent of coverage. The kinds of sources we are looking for in all doubtful or disproved cases will depend on when and where the person lived, but we could state here that we will usually expect more than one reliable source and that sources should be in national or international, rather than local media. Itsmejudith (talk

) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the intent of #3 is to remain vague enough to achieve consensus until it is better honed. The basic position I have taken and seen taken is that being 110 is sufficient for list inclusion but not for a bio article; the discussion over Jan is so heavy because he also has the imaginary title [oldest] [living] [verified] [male] [in Europe]. JJB 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Since we have no contrary view then I will put it in a notability section on the project page. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I like your phrasing! That will stand well until somebody notices it. :D I would just like to reaffirm: #2. For me, it seems that the first article for a new claim should be the appropriate article out of living verified, dead verified (by year), controverted, unverified (two). #4. I would delete a list article if there is no secondary source that includes a comparable list and if it's wholly redundant with the base articles. #5. Based on GRuban's

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyen_des_Fran%C3%A7ais

Note that the above article, in another language, came up with their own solution.

B. Mini-bio notability: (This means the person would have a paragraph about them as part of a larger article) for oldest persons by nation, oldest males by nation, but for which a generalized article is not warranted.

C. General biography: If the person was a "world's oldest person" titleholder, "world's oldest man" titleholder, or if the person generally ranked in the top-ten oldest living persons, age 113+, and for which significant media coverage would warrant an article.

D. Longevity claim notability: for claims to age 113+, that are living, to be included on a list (Longevity claims); for claims to age 115+, deceased, to be included on a list.

In addition, those claimants that warranted significant media attention (such as Elizabeth Israel of Dominica) would warrant their own article. This generally would be limited to claims to be the world's oldest person.

I'd like to hear what some others have to say about this. The problem is that media coverage often is dependent on whether the person wants attention or not. Thus, we can have verified 114-year-olds from Spain that are anonymous and thus warrant only list inclusion, not an individual biography.Ryoung122 04:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this comes close to actually discussing the problem, it attracts interaction. My notes:

• Insofar as this proposal reflects current practice among the workgroup it does not have special pride of place among other proposals.
• Overspecific notability rules do not have consensus like general notability rules; note that #3 and #5 are deliberately vague to retain that consensus.
• Particularly, the current rule for living/dead unverifieds is that a living unverified under 113 is list-notable for
  list of living supercentenarians
  but if that person dies under 113 they are removed from that list and not replaced, as nonnotable anywhere. This contradicts notability not temporary.
• A. The age-108 portion of proposal A is a rejection of current consensus, by appeal to fr.wikipedia, a tertiary source, so it need not be considered without further backup. As to two other portions, I fully agree with using the accepted age-110 criterion as established by RS, and the idea of listing living "general"ly and dead "by nationality" could take a little discussion, as follows.
• If someone has a supercentenarian claim not on WP and wants to find the "correct" or "base" article for potential insertion, there is zero guidance right now. I've argued in my notability point #2 that verifieds should be split into living (all) and dead (by year). It is possible to regard the base articles as the nationality articles instead of the by-year articles, with the living article regarded as a permissibly redundant subset of the nationality articles, to accommodate R's ideas. The difficulties are: (1) determining nationality, which is often dual; (2) housing some people in one-item lists, or creating arbitrary continental arguments (see current AFDs). That is, how could an inserter find the "correct" article for discussion if the nationality itself is unclear and the party may have to start a new article for a small country that is itself not a notable article, and how could this be tracked easily on the longevity template? It appears that, although moving to a nationalist base might satisfy some group concerns, it does not have an objective enough scope statement to be workable at this time.
• B. Not sure this would be needed: Oldest female and male by nation do not get inline minibios unless RSs permit, and other claimants do not avoid getting minibios when RSs permit, so a separate guarantee for oldest-in-nation does not seem to have any force. This discussion belongs at #"People" sections at end of list articles, where it appears minibios are being tolerated for the nonce. However, I made an add to #3 that might both address this and be acceptable to IMJ per her comments below. JJB 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• C. Same problem as B. If you have significant media coverage (and above I stated that significant is a high bar here), it doesn't matter what title you have been accorded, or not, by Young & Co.
• D. R uses "claim" to mean "unverified under 131y0d". I have objected vehemently, both to the
  WP:BIAS. Thus here, very oddly, I am arguing, via policy, for greater notability of unverifieds, while Ryoung122 and other editors are the deletionists. There are a dozen or two cases that have been deleted and I have not fought to restore on precisely this line. So let's stop the charges that one camp is deletionist, when it's about objective scopes and policy conformity, thanks. JJB
  16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 has, while letting the reference to

WP:GNG

in this notability section stand, continued to argue for a form of inherent notability, not recognizing the contradiction between it and the GNG formulation he has passively accepted, nor addressing the significant problems with such inherent notability stated above. Rather than responding here, he has dropped the following comments into an AFD in his own idiom, once again the wrong place (I have reformatted them):

Third...the 2007 discussion suggested that when notability cannot be independently demonstrated, there still could be a mini-bio in the "list of" pages. Where do you think that idea came from? Wikipedia.

Fourth...I realize that we don't need an article or even a mini-bio on EVERY supercentenarian. I suggest you put off further nominations for deletion and come to the table for some practical proposals. For example, I generally favor biographies if the person is:

1. Recognized by reliable outside sources as the World's Oldest Person or World's Oldest Man.

2. Claims to be the world's oldest person or oldest man and has international coverage.

3. Is 114+ (or alternately, is in the top-100 list all-time) and has substantial media coverage outside the local area. Thus, Ruth Bauder Clark,111, may not be notable as her obit only appeared in the Sarasota news, but someone like Beatrice Farve was featured in USA Today (coverage outside the local area), which argues that OUTSIDE sources selected this person to be notable enough.

4. Oldest persons of a nation should at least have a mini-bio on the "list of" page, if not notable enough for a standalone article.

5. War veterans may be notable for reasons that combine age with their tie to an historical event (i.e., Harry Patch).

3. I agree with minibios. I propose they be used as merges when we have about three or four sources, with the number wobbly due to the variety in reliability (for instance, we might perhaps still merge with five local sources, but perhaps still keep with three national sources). However, these numbers should stay wobbly rather than be hard and fast (unlike the GNG rule that one reliable source equals delete, which is a brightline).

4.1. Consensus has contradicted this, because the list of world's oldest woman or man (you should also include world's oldest woman when the oldest person is a man, to avoid bias) has never been fully populated, and to create an inherent notability where one has never existed would be a nonstarter; some of these people have never been notable by WP standards, and you also have that recentism bias against people who died before 1955 as well.

4.2. Since it depends on coverage, this is not an inherence argument, but a special case of considering sources that should follow the same rules already unobjected to by any party, namely GNG and the minibio merge. Accordingly, I could take 4.2 as further demonstration of consensus with these guidelines in the special case, as well as an indication that an article with only local sources in whatever quantity is not notable (as opposed to what I said, an article with a handful of, say five, local sources). But we need not press this now.

4.3. I don't see anybody indicating that the top 100, or age 114, are always notable; media coverage indicates to me that if they're not the oldest by nation or state (4.4) it is haphazard whether they get coverage or not. That is, maybe the top two ever, or even ten, are notable, as we do see top-ten lists in independent sources, but not top-100 or 114+ lists. In GWR we see sometimes up to 20, but GWR must be supplemented by other sources. So there is no reliable source to back up this inherence argument, and the stance of sources, which might better back point 4.4, was already dismissed by R as not necessarily conferring article notability.

4.4. As you state it, I agree with this; it is not an inherence argument but another special case of the same GNG and minibio rules already agreed to. It also is another admission that many oldest nationals are not notable. Incidentally, this repeats R's point B above, and so, unless R decides to edit the project page on this point, I can posit we're just talking past each other and we have basic agreement on the GNG and minibio rules as stated.

4.5. This is yet another special case that is no different from the GNG and minibio rules.

In short, I see no true objection to the present standards. If an argument were to be made that some hypothetical class of subjects is inherently notable even when not generally notable, such as all claims to age 114, I think it would require demonstration of reliable independent sources attempting to enumerate that class per se rather than adhoc. Such argument has not arisen, and the only arguments taking its place are based solely on Ryoung122's "favor". JJB 19:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)