Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The contention that this has single sourcing hasn't been challenged to the general notability of this list hasn't been established. Arguments to keep based on casting aspertions about the motivations of other editors are far less compelling then deletion arguments showing analysis of sourcing and clear references to policy. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

List of African supercentenarians
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing notability and verifiability. For information such as this to appear in an encyclopeia there should be more than one self-appointed source which says they have "verified" the claims. Edison (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable synthesis of information. Bull dog123  22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep.

This is not a biography, the standard Edison is attempting to apply is inappropriate. We're not talking about a "notable person," we are talking about an article that is onsubject matters which are notable "Africa" and "supercentenarians"...or more specifically, verified supercentenarians.

Further, there are quite a few sources that can be used for this, such as the International Database on Longevity, the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, and the Gerontology Research Group.

Edison's comment is inappropriate; words such as "self-appointed" are accusatory in nature. Ryoung 122 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further comment: We can see that Edison is a "Biography of Living Persons" patrol...but this article is not a biography, whether a listed person is alive or not. It is a list. Ryoung 122 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BLP applies to everything said about any living person, whether it is in a biography, a paragraph of an article about an invention, the caption to a picture, a list, or even things written on talk pages. For example, if someone calls me a homophobe on the talk page of an article, without powerful reliable sources to back it up, that person is lucky to get off with just having the remarks collapsed. I use this example because it should be familiar to RY. So Edison is applying the correct standard. Under that standard, this list fails. It relies on raw data, maintained as primary sources on websites that do not bear the indicia of reliable sources. They are not reliable, as that term is defined on wikipedia, nor verifiable as that one's defined. Deriving conclusions from raw data is prohibited original research and synthesis. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This "source" is self-published raw data. David in DC (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So is this one. David in DC (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So is this one David in DC (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is so far from a reliable source, it's stunning. It's hosted at something called www.recordholders.org, bears a disclaimer disavowing its own accuracy and features amazon.com ads for books associated with the compiler of the raw data more prominently than the data. David in DC (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Your argument is so wrong, so far off the mark, that it's wrong in two categories of being wrong. So, I'm going to respond in two parts. First off, if you make homophobic remarks, then it's appropriate to call you out on it. But that has NOTHING to do with this article. That you brought that issue up...AN ISSUE YOU STARTED...only proves that you are here to cause trouble, not do the right thing. You are lucky to get off with just a reprimand. Again, THIS IS NOT A BIOGRAPHY. But even if it was, I don't see anything offensive about listing a 112-year-old woman who was born in Africa as born in Africa. Granted, the flag should be changed to represent French Algeria, but that's a minor quibble.

You don't delete a non-biography article on a biographical standard. Now for response part II. Ryoung 122 01:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Above, we see three consecutive knowingly-false accusations, followed by a put-down. How about some FACTS:

1. Both Louis Epstein and myself are considered "experts" in the field. That's why we have material published in journal articles, like this one:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1033?journalCode=rej

or how about this one:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1145

You can find me at the International Database on Longevity:

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

You can find me at the New England Supercentenarian Study:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian/our-staff/

Oh yes, you can find me at Guinness World Records as well.

http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Oldest-Living-Man-Turns-114/blog/2667504/7691.html

The bottom line is: for you to say the GRG material is "not a reliable source" is to go against what was already decided in the 2007 ArbCom. Time Magazine said that Guinness World Records was the "official arbiter of longevity." So, actually, you are attacking the mainstream, all because of a personality conflict. Your editing is flat-out incorrect, inappropriate, false, accusatory, malicious, and spiteful. Ryoung 122 01:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The cabalist is back. You even have a list of articles that I support that you attack, and have been, since 2007. Get a life. And get real. Sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. all quote the Gerontology Research Group as a reliable source:

Woman among world's oldest dies at 112 in Fla. ‎ Washington Post - Jan 1, 2011 According to the Los Angeles-based Gerontology Research Group, Onie Ponder had been the oldest person in Florida and one of the 25 oldest people in the ... Woman among world's oldest dies at 112 in Fla.‎ - Atlanta Journal Constitution all 258 news articles » MiamiHerald.com Evelyn Margaret Ralston, 1899 - 2010 ‎ Chicago Tribune - Jonathan Bullington - Dec 30, 2010 29, the Los Angeles-based Gerontology Research Group had her listed as the 52nd-oldest person on Earth. Miss Ralston sometimes grew annoyed by questions ... Evanston woman dead at 111‎ - Chicago Tribune Illinois' oldest resident dies at 111‎ - Chicago Sun-Times Evanston resident passes away at 111‎ - TribLocal WLS all 31 news articles » TribLocal World's oldest man reflects on Christmas ‎ USA Today - Richard Ecke - Dec 26, 2010 At 114, Breuning is acknowledged to be the world's oldest man by the Guinness Book of World Records and the Gerontology Research Group. ...

How can you claim the GRG is not a reliable source? Your accusations are far across the line of libel. Ryoung 122 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be very careful making comments like that; you're treading dangerously close to NLT territory. Also, your status as an expert would be welcome on Citizendium; however, all that screed above proves is that your arguments are logically unsound.  Instead of addressing the concerns of the delete voters, you're using a combination of poisoning the well (by calling David in DC a cabalist before you even begin to make your point), red herring (by bringing up unrelated articles on supercentenarians), straw man (by misconstruing his claim to mean the GRG isn't a reliable source, when what he actually means is that the GRG is self-published, raw data and not The TruthTM), and ad hominem (by calling him a cabalist who attacks every article, when you know full well that's not the case) arguments. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Blade of Northern Lights, I'm going to respond to your misinterpretation of the situation, in part, because you seem reasonable. Let's look at the situation again.

1. My first edit, responding to Edison, dealt with policy, not personal issues. 2. DavidinDC came on here and brought up personal issues ('homophobia') that are not relevant. 3. DavidinDC made flippant remarks like this one:

"This is so far from a reliable source, it's stunning."

4. DavidinDC made mischaracterizations, using terms such as "raw data" and "self-published." That's NOT true. What is a self-published source? If a family made a personal website with their beloved grandma and claimed she was 118, that's a self-published source.

The GRG, in fact, is an intermediary source. It takes material from other sources, vets it, and decides what to publish and what not to publish. The GRG is listed as a source of the world's oldest person list by Guinness World Records. The GRG's position in the international niche field of supercentenarian research has been accepted by the mainstream media (the Wall Street Journal, New York Times,etc.). I bet you didn't know the GRG has included many of the world's leading experts, such as Leonard Hayflick. It is more than clear that, doing a little homework, DavidinDC's charges are false. And since he has been making them for 3+ years, it's also clear that he has not operated in good faith. We can't assume good faith with a track record of 3+ years of harassment, contrary to Wiki policies on reliable sources.

Of course, there's more than just the GRG at issue here. On one side, we have the mainstream media that continues to publish stories on supercentenarians as if they are notable. On the other side, we have persons such as DavidinDC that have argued, based on personal opinion, that supercentenarians are not notable, either individually or as a group.

This particular article should be based on group-notability. It's not a biography or a collection of biographies. It is a list, and should be judged as a list. It's purpose is to show what the established longevity records are for various regions of the world, and to counter the misperception that, because life expectancy varies greatly, lifespan does as well...when in fact, it does not.

As I pointed out, I am involved with all the major groups: GWR, GRG, MPIFDR, IDL, SRF, NESS, SSA.

Finally, the lists are NOT about "truth," they are about "verifiability." The GRG uses the same standard as Wikipedia: verifiability. Do you understand what that means? No one knows for sure if the oldest person ever in Africa was 114, or older than that. But we know for sure that Adelina Domingues was born in Cape Verde in 1888 and lived to 114 years, 183 days. Those are facts backed up by documentation that met the standards of age verification...set not by the GRG but by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the International Database on Longevity. The only problem is those sources are "confidential". Only the GRG publishes the data publicly. However, if you were a researcher, you could access those other institutions.

One problem with Wikipedia is the idea that if it's not on the internet, it does not exist.

FALSE. Something does NOT have to be on the internet to be a reliable source. Yet even the Max Planck Institute and IDL have, on occasion, published their material online.

I suggest you do more reading, and gain a little background knowledge of why this is important.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/?books/drm/007/

Ryoung 122 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYN; it's basically grouping people notable for one thing into a completely different category. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. We have "life expectancy" data by nation, by geographic regions. Your above comment is NOT well-thought-out.

For much of human history, there has been a belief, not founded in facts, that persons in certain regions of the world live longer (i.e., Caucasus, Hunza, Vilcabamba). One way to counter that misconception is to organize supercentenarian by geography, where it becomes evident that persons from around the world all share the same lifespan.

For example: records by continent:

Europe: 122 North America: 119 South America: 116 Asia: 116 Africa: 114 Australia: 114

Further, when we see that Europe's second-oldest person is just 115, we realize that the '122' record is an outlier (extreme unusual observation). Statistically, there's no evidence that anyone lives longer than anyone else.

Thus, it is in the best interest of science to have articles that cross-section longevity with geography, to make this point.

Wikipedia has articles on local schools, yet finds a continent-wide listing of supercentenarians to not be notable? Something is rotten in Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Don't make this a blog-war. This should be about common sense and facts.

The fact is, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article. Ryoung 122 13:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/KeepThis is not "poisoning the well"... It is already patently obvious that David in DC is working in tandem with people like JJBulten to destroy articles and lists on supercentenarians. His repeated denying of this accusation further lends weight to this statement. As for the GRG being a "unreliable source"...get a life before you begin making accusations like this. Do a Google search and you will find that most, if not all, articles on recently-deceased verified superecentenarians list the GRG as their source. The 2007 ArbCom determined that the GRG indeed was reliable... and though consensus can change, there is no indication that the GRG has since changed its 'methods' that would make it any less reliable by general standards. The sources are NOT "self-published"... outside reports decide whether or not these sources are reliable or not, not Wikipedians engaging in ill-tempered Wiki politics who contrive to destroy the subject in question being discussed. Also, this source does not have "zero" sources... thus any argument about "unsourced" is INVALID. →  Bre  nd an  06:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read the definition of poisoning the well? The logical term means to attempt to influence someone's opinion before even introducing your argument, which is exactly what calling David in DC a "cabalist" seeks to achieve.  And you haven't addressed our concerns above in any meaningful, substantive fashion- your arguments are sorely lacking in logical soundness.  They suffer from all of the problems I mentioned above; shall I go through them point-by-point? The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If David is not a cabalist, it would only be because, technically, he has made it so obvious that he has a personal vendetta against me and against articles on supercentenarians on Wikipedia. So, I suppose one could argue that a "cabalist" operates in secrecy, while David has made his personal bias known. That's not a much better argument. Ryoung 122 12:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what DavidinDC wrote? David poisoned the well, not me. DavidinDC posted issues of "homophobia" which have nothing to do with this AFD discussion...except if David wants to point out that he has a history of bias.
 * Yes, I read what he wrote. If you actually read argumentum ad hominem, you'll see that it can be used correctly, and that David in DC is doing so while you are not.  David in DC pointing out past disputes that may have carried over into this debate is perfectly reasonable, as it provides some context; your telling me to get a life is not only supremely ironic, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Now would you answer my question instead of throwing yet another red herring and another personal attack?  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, delete as lacking notability and verifiability. This empire constructed on the basis that reaching a certain age of itself is sufficiently notable to warrant article after article needs to be trimmed down to proportion, I'm afraid. I find it an embarrassment for the project that such a fuss is made over some very very ordinary people on such a flimsy basis. Tony   (talk)  15:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per my prior nom quoted below. I will read the very interesting discussion above later. I have reread the rationales below to ensure they still fit the article generally (if not perfectly on every point) and they are still sound, even with NickO adding Narbonne. JJB 00:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Wholly redundant with other articles, in that every name appears in other more basic articles, primarily the deaths-by-year articles and the list of living supercentenarians, as well as the records articles, each listed at Template:Longevity. I would delete List of European supercentenarians too but I believe it should be double-checked for 100% redundancy first.
 * 2) Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG (one indirectly through Louis Epstein), whose founder and lead members are members of the WP:WOP workgroup that maintains these articles. A rationale that the GRG e-group need not reveal its sources, when they are 95% the same type of Web sources Wikipedians use routinely, is utterly unviable. A rationale that sources are unnecessary because they appear in the bios or other list articles fails because it illustrates the redundancy (and because many list articles also treat sources as unnecessary). Paging WP:V.
 * 3) The GRG links do not demonstrate that the topic "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is notable; no such continental list occurs anywhere to my knowledge except in WP as a trivia review. A rationale that such data need multiple presentation methods fails because the presentation methods themselves are OR (nobody else uses such methods) and because of undue weight. Redirects are contraindicated because there are no targets and because they would perpetuate the OR.
 * 4) Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: sparseness of fill leading to too short a list to be notable as a list, in a possible attempt to list every supercentenarian up to three times (by death date, country/continent, and in a bio: undue weight), when the proper approach is to list each notable one once in a small set of list articles (and then to let growth accrue only due to notability and sourcing). Sort by age is wholly OR as if "5th oldest African emigrant" occurs anywhere in the world but this article. COI and walled-garden problems in project (primary editor NickOrnstein is sometimes OK to work with but is spinning his wheels very unnecessarily, keeping this article precisely synched with the others and the GRG pages). Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113. JJB 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not the place for researchers to publish their original research; what's more, the list appears to be indiscriminate, as the notability of this topic has not been demonstrated. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Addressing issues raised by DavidinDC at the commencement of this article, in referencing to Original Research. This is not correct. The data that is referred to comes from a multitude of sources made up of a worldwide network that gathers such information. The information is gleaned from media sources, usually print newspapers and electronic media, which have published information on notable persons of longevity on a regional, national and worldwide basis. If one accepts the notion that encyclopaedias contain information on the highest mountains, the longest rivers and the biggest cities; there is an encyclopaedic category of oldest people. The problem up to now has been using the scientific method for the observation, verification and recording of the oldest people. Modern industrial nations have used birth certificates, marriage certificates and census taking for such authentication. Such processes do not apply to the bulk of the world’s population in Asia and Africa. We are now developing an understanding of other processes such as comparing the use of different calendars and other forms of record-keeping. What is now emerging are similarities in the human population on all continents in the process of aging and longevity. For the genuine researcher seeking a scientific observation of human longevity such research is invaluable. Such data is encyclopaedic by nature. To aid in the scientific study of human longevity it is essential that such data be tabulated on the internet-world encyclopaedia: Wikipedia.Cam46136 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)cam46136
 * 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.