Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First supercentenarians


 * 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. Flowerparty ■ 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

First supercentenarians
This is a redundant article (better merged to supercentenarians). Also, un-encyclopaedic choice of topics (why oldest French and not oldest English, for example?). Haphazard construction, borrows liberally from other sources but downgrades the information by making the lists any way they want to. → R Young {yak ł talk } 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, I guess. Stifle 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, valuable info, WP:NOR is not intended for cases like this. Kappa 12:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep many of the people listed have articles about them -- Astrokey44 |talk 12:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has very considerable overlap with another, Oldest people, which is more coherent and better organised. I am bothered by the lack of sources in the current article, and am concerned that the quality of Oldest people might be reduced by a merger. Therefore, delete. Sliggy 13:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is considerable overlap not only with "Supercentenarians" and "Oldest people" but with Longevity claims (which fills a nich dealig with the more with the less solid cases) as well.  One of them should go, and for reasons stated above, it looks like this is the one.  Gene Nygaard 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The other pages have a sensible organization, but this one is arbitrary (why France and not the UK, for example?) 70.89.83.190 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment absent evidence of information about the UK being kept out of there, I don't see that as a valid argument for deletion. Gene Nygaard 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is no logic or order to this article.  Look at the others: Supercentenarian: a person verified to be 110 or older.  Longevity claims: unverified claims to 110+ that aren't preposterous.  Longevity myths: preposterous claims to extreme longevity stretched beyond normal reasons.  Oldest People: Lists of the world's oldest person, oldest woman, oldest man, and oldest by nationality.  First supercentenarians, instead, arbitrarily lists what it wants to under no order or format.  For example, the article appears to be started as "first person to reach 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, etc."  But then what do "oldest person by race" and "oldest by French nationality" have to do with the "first" to reach 110? Again, we don't see a systematic listing of oldest by every nationality with a large dataset.  Instead, we find that the article starter is French, so he made a French list.  That's arbitrary and un-encyclopaedic reasoning. 69.180.8.87 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Sliggy. --Snargle 21:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.