Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last surviving 1800s-born people


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Last surviving 1800s-born people

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List fails WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:V and all material is available in other articles such as Oldest people DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per Derby, the first table is stolen straight from the List of living supercentenarians page and the second table is poorly sourced. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Content fork of the previously mentioned articles. I don't think it's worth its own page, as it can easily be seen from the others. Ansh666 03:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per the others, this is redundant. Hekerui (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article is completely relevant to today's situation in which the number of surviving people born in the 1800s is declining. When we reach a point that the last person born in the 1800s has passed, this article will be worthy of deletion. As of June 2013, it is still a completely relevant and valuable article. --82.34.243.21 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, if these people are notable, then they will carry on being notable after their deaths.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a content fork.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * keep it is still of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.143.229 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant page, ill-named.  Royal Mate1  19:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.218.22 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is interesting, but the list of living supercentenarians answers the same question. Also, the article is oddly enough, self-deleting.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article relevant until these people are dead, which will not be that long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.140.84 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As said above, the information in the first table is stolen straight from an already existing Wikipedia page. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge I admit there are arguments for deleting this page. The list of living persons comes from the top of the List of living supercentenarians, and there is the page List of oldest people by year of birth.  With some work you can figure out who the last person born in the 1700s to die was, and the same will eventually apply for the 1800s, however I don't think there is a chart that orders them (after death) as this page does.  This sort of data does interest me, and how do you define interest?Juve2000 (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This page only lists living people. It's quite easy to figure out from the other pages mentioned above, where this was copied from. There is nothing to merge, and personal interest is no reason to keep. Ansh666 03:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't follow various wiki codes, and to be honest, I could understand had it been about the last born of the 19th century, (which also would have been of little importance) and considering if you search 1800s you come to this page 1800s I just don't see the point as oldest people gives you all the information you need! MattSucci (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Contains no unique information, and will soon be redundant anyhow --Jonie148 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Believe this is a redundant and unnecessary article. Rpvt (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Although, I don't agree with the recent addition of the ones that have died being included at the bottom of the chart. I think once a person dies they should be removed entirely. Zz pot (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Using that logic, the list will defeat its own purpose when the last person dies. Again, DELETE. List of living supercentenarians contains the same information, but is self-sustaining as there will likely always be at least one supercentenarian (whether born in the 1800s or not) to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.219.176 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep- It hurts nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2013 (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.