User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ/ProjectLongevity

Basic issues that this project needs to attempt to resolve
(In the following the term "validated" refers to age determination by organisation such as, but not limited to, the GRG; "verified" means reported by any source which satisfies WP:RS)

The subject of human longevity differs from most other human-related Wiki topics in that it relies on far more subjectivity than objectivity. While many longevity fans treat it is a contest similar to sporting events it is most certainly not. Since its inception on Wikipedia longevity has suffered under multiple issues including: WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. As such there are multiple issues which need addressing if this Project is to bring the subject to a more acceptable standard for Wikipedia purposes.

"Verifiability not truth"
It is, at present, impossible to determine any (exceptionally old) person's age to within 1 day by scientific analysis. Even if there were such a method it would need to be applied to every person on the planet to be able to say with 100% certainty that anyone is/was the world's oldest living/ever person. Therefore any statement to the effect that "This person is the world's oldest living person" is false. The statement needs to be something to the effect that "This person is the oldest known person whose age has been determined by documentary evidence". That still leaves the issue of who determines this, especially for living people. The RFCs here and here determined that there be no differentiation between Reliable Sources, more specifically that there be no differentiation between persons validated by the GRG and others cited in Reliable Sources. This initially applied specifically only to that article (with some later clarification) but has since been applied to some, but not all, similar lists in various country/region articles.
 * Should there be no differentiation between Reliable Sources across all Longevity-related articles?
 * With reference to deceased persons, should there be an upper limit of credibility, if so what should that limit be?
 * With reference to living persons, should there be an upper limit of credibility, if so what should that limit be?

The World's Oldest Ever person
There is common agreement that Jeanne Calment is the oldest known person whose age has been validated.
 * Should Jeanne Calment continue to be the upper limit of oldest known verified people, or should there be a higher limit (or none) and all cases that pass RS be treated equally?

The World's Oldest Living Person
The Afds here and here glossed over an important point; who determines the WOP (and World's Oldest Man if different)? This has, since, 1955, been determined by announcements by Guinness (and the ceremonial presentation of certificates where possible). This process has been muddied somewhat by Guinness using the GRG for its age validations since (? approx 2000). The result has been that when the WOP dies news outlets report the next WOP as whoever is next on the GRG's published list. It has also been the habit of longevity-fan Wiki editors to proclaim the next WOP before/without the existence of any RS report, thus violating BLP. A further issue is that the GRG is not as reliable, and certainly not as infallible, as many of its supporters like to think. There are numerous cases of validation being withdrawn, at least one long-standing questionable case being reclassified as validated (and not questioned), a case where another case was found to be older than the announced WOP, and a case where the GRG insisted a person had died when there relative insisted on Wikipedia that they were still alive. With the death of its founder the GRG appears to be operating on a reduced budget (they only list new people once they are past their 112th birthday, not their 110th) and this may be part of the recent problems. I for one feel that this impacts significantly on the reliability of the GRG v other RS on this issue in particular.
 * Who (i.e. which RS) determines the World's Oldest Person?
 * What should the upper limit be (if any) for credible WOP claims (i.e. if the Guinness WOP is not be given preferential status over other RS)?

Biographies
The Afds for Chiyo Miyako and Kane Tanaka highlight a long-standing issue with longevity biographies. In the past many longevity fans created articles for many supercentenarians on the flimsiest basis. Many have since been deleted on the basis of failing WP:GNG, and a few redirected/merged to country list articles as mini-bios. The arguments for Miyako and Tanaka fell largely into the following camps: It is unfortunate that in both the Miyako and Tanaka cases that the original Afd result to delete (or merge/redirect) was challenged and 1 (so far) overturned to "No consensus" (and the article restored). This indicates that determining a notability guidelines for biographies will be more difficult, even a consensus here may not be accepted by the wider Wiki community. If there is a clear consensus on 3 above then it may be possible to get something included in WP:BIO.
 * "The world's oldest person is clearly notable and there is no question that an article is justified (irrelevant of content)."
 * "The world's oldest person is clearly notable and there is enough content to justify an article."
 * "The world's oldest person is notable but there is not enough content to justify a stand-alone article, however a redirect and merge to a mini-bio in List of Japanese supercentenarians is justified."
 * "Insufficient content in the current article to justify its retention or even reconstitute as a mini-bio in List of Japanese supercentenarians, a simple redirect will suffice."
 * Is there any minimum criteria that could/should be used in determining whether a longevity related biography is automatically notable (e.g. Guinness's WOP)?
 * Is there any minimum criteria that could/should be used in determining whether a longevity related mini-biography in a Country List (e.g. List of Japanese supercentenarians is automatically notable (e.g. Guinness's WOP)?

Listcruft
Despite the fact that many have been removed there are still considerable number of "List of supercentenarian" articles, and lists within other articles which are of dubious encyclopedic merit. Many of these would appear to fail WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH etc. If it is taken into account that most lists are based on lists by the GRG, and given that the GRG is neither an exhaustive list of such people or the only RS for the same and that many lists are unlikely to be of interest to anyone but longevity fans which, if any, should be retained.
 * Are any lists by area (i.e. continent) notable (with the possible/probable exception of List of European supercentenarians)?
 * Should there be a criteria for which country lists of surpercentenarians (e.g. minimum/maximum numbers, coverage, upper age limit)?
 * Which RS should be used for such lists?
 * Are "chronological list of oldest person" type lists justifiable (since most are OR)?