Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians (3rd 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Listing per Deletion review/Log/2015 March 26. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: For the following reasons:
 * 1. The new version of this article includes more cases and more sources (such as news reports) than previously when only the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) was sourced.
 * 2. One basis for deletion in the two previous deletion discussions, was that the GRG is not a reliable source, which is no longer considered to be the case.
 * 3. I think that this article will improve over time as more cases with references are added.
 * 4. There are similar articles for each of the other continents so I think it would be discriminatory not to have one for Africa as well.

Thankyou. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: For the following reasons:
 * 1. All the other continents on Earth have been already considered in separate articles, therefore Africa as important continent, cannot be postponed.
 * 2. The article has been created in accordance to the research performed and published by the Gerontology Research Group, which is world's leading authority in research into extreme longevity and supercentenarians tracking. The credibility of the GRG is unquestionable.
 * 3. The improvement of the article is certain as the general world's life expectancy is improving, hence more future cases of supercentenarians are expected to appear along with their positive verification. The Gerontology Research Group also successfully includes more and more areas of the modern world into its research.
 * 4 The article serves as an important source of information and education for the society about how long can the individuals truly live in the African countries in comparison to the rest of the world.

Sincerely, --- Waenceslaus (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Why should we have similar articles for Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Oceania but not for Africa? Or otherwise: Why are these articles not being considered for deletion? I cannot understand this inconsistency.

Sincerely, --- Kachelus (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping this article. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This argument sounds like discrimination against the continent Africa and all of its people in my opinion which can be seen dangerous and I do NOT think this is what wikipedia should be. So I would prefer not to state an argument with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this case. Best wishes, Kachelus (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per User:JJB four years ago. There are no reliable sources. The only reference used are GRG tables. As stated at the WP:WOP page, there is "no consensus" that the tables are a reliable source. The GRG itself may be reliable, but the tables are not. It also states that information from the GRG is to be used as a backup source only. The data in this article is synthesised from the various tables. The GRG links do not demonstrate notability, nowhere on the GRG website does a "List of [continent] supercentenarians" page exist. I believe WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies as Wikipedia articles are not here for the GRG to keep track of its own information or for the GRG to supplement their own tables. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:USEFUL arguments also fail on their own merit. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - "No consensus" as of about four years ago, I believe, around about the same time as the previous deletion discussion. Oh, and "no consensus" does not mean "unreliable". Your comment "The GRG itself may be reliable, but the tables are not" makes no sense. The GRG is considered to be an authority on supercentenarian research by Guinness World Records and is mentioned constantly as an authority by various news sources. They verify longevity claimants, so how you can call verified information unreliable I don't know.
 * The GRG tables list all cases by place of birth and death. WP:SYNTHESIS might say "Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" but the only thing not explicitly stated in the source is that certain countries are in certain continents, and you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Otherwise I don't see how simply making a list using this information is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another point: this is a list article, so I don't see why any further sources than the GRG tables are necessary. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:SYN does not prohibit combining or citing multiple sources in an article, unless this combination is used to come to a conclusion to which neither source comes. I am not sure this article comes within its scope. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm glad, that you have finally come to this, that the GRG is the reliable source, CommanderLinx. The numerous media citations, in many different countries, will help you to further convince yourself in this belief. However I still need to assure you, that the GRG tables, being published by the reliable source, which is the GRG are no less reliable than the very scientific institution, that publishes them. In the last few days, upon the passing away of Misao Okawa, GRG and GWR-verified world's oldest person and Gertrude Weaver, GWR and GRG-verified world's oldest person, we could see massive GRG citations by the media in countries such as Jamaica, Netherlands, Poland and other. I'm glad other Wikipedians understand this and they conscientiously vote for maintenance of this article. Therefore there is no need for you to further vote for the deletion of this very article, which bases on the Gerontology Research Group's research, pictured in the tables, links to which have been given in the references of the article.

Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are similar articles for other regions. The article does need more sources, but that is no reason to delete. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (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.