Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian 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 was   keep. Potential editorial decisions should be worked out on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Belgian supercentenarians

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Is such a list really necessary? None of the individuals is notable enough for their own article, and the list will be constantly changing as new people achieve the distinction and others die off. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a list of unreferenced red links, notability of this subject is not clear RadioFan (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of European supercentenarians per WikiDan61--RadioFan (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a list of nothing but red links (three or four of them at that) doesn't have a place here. If it were a more notable subject, I would recommend expansion. However, since the notability (as mentioned by RadioFan above) is not clear, I agree with the proposed delete.


 * Keep. For a start, please could you at least wait until the article is "complete" (in terms of the sections). Many other nations have pages like this and also list people (now deceased) who reached 110. There are many editors who keep tabs on these sort of pages so the fluctuation of the article is not really a problem. Citations can be provided if necessary. I believe this has been submitted far too early. Nominating an article for deletion only 6 minutes after its creation doesn't leave enough time for this to be a sensible vote.If you take a look at List of Dutch supercentenarians as a comparison, that's the sort of style that this article would be expected to reach. Currently it only has one small section, but there are many others which can and should be added. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the views on WP:DEADLINE go both ways. Editors can also wait to create articles until there is sufficient content and references for the article to pass WP:GNG.  I personally lean towards this view because it prevents clutter. creates less work for others and makes for much higher quality articles overall.  Also citations are definitely necessary, without them notability is not demonstrated. --RadioFan (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *The purpose of Wikipedia's processes is to support content creators. Not the rest of us.  New pages patrollers, deletionists and other process-focussed users perform a valuable function that I do not wish to denigrate, but people who are working to write an encyclopaedia in good faith have a basic entitlement to work in article space rather than userspace if they wish.  This is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.  Because this is a five pillars matter (specifically pillar #3), it's a fundamental, founding principle of Wikipedia, above all other rules. I find the idea that content creators are "creating work for others" is a deeply disturbing one, and I respectfully ask you to reconsider your understanding of this matter.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of European supercentenarians. I admit that I did not know other such lists already existed; I would have proposed the merge in the first place.  Certainly Belgium does not need its own list, as the list for all of Europe already exists.  Such lists seem overly complicated as they are constantly changing, but if editors are willing to keep them up to date, so be it.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The European list has tables specifically about Europe, not individual European countries. This page does also list the living supercentenarians, but not those who are deceased as they never had the title of the oldest person in Europe. If you take a look at lists such as List of British supercentenarians you'll see that these lists have information specifically about supercentenarians from that nation, and as such it wouldn't be possible to merge them (we'd end up with a list of European supercentenarians with an addendum of old Belgian cases). How could these articles be merged? SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your distinction. Don't Belgian supercentenarians just comprise a subcategory of European supercentenarians?  Are there Belgians who aren't Europeans?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But the European supercentenarians page is to list all Europeans together, not separate them by nationality. Where do you think the tables for the oldest Belgians would go on that page? SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The European page is listed in rank order (by age), with the country listed for each entry. Just intersperse the Belgians into the list in their appropriate rank order.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And who is going to add the other hundreds of European supercentenarians to the list and update the rankings of living people amongst them? We can only do so much, which is why the lists are limited in size. We can keep tabs on short lists because they only need updating every week or so. If we were to list everyone it would need updating constantly. In any case, now that I've added a variety of reliable citations, the article meets WP:N so I don't see a reason for it to be removed/merged. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely my reason for nominating the article for deletion in the first place! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Given that the nominator now accepts that a merge to List of European supercentenarians is an acceptable outcome and nobody else feels it should be deleted, is there any reason I should not close this AfD under WP:SK ground 1?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the european list. The list takes on greater meaning in the wider context; what is so special about Belgian supercentenarians? There are some similar lists that should also be merged into the one.  Them From  Space  22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comments above, and then please explain how you think this might be feasible. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting the country of origin in that article, which is already the precedent, is feasible enough. The format of the table can be adjusted so that it can be sorted by country as well as age, so in that sense the reader will see all people from each country grouped together as well. Having many short articles like this does little to show the relationship of these people to each other; the European article has a much more fitting scope.  Them  From  Space  16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, would lose a lot of information by merger to the European article. Fits neatly in with similar articles on other countries or regions. Lampman (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is now reliably sourced, and meets WP:N. Neptune 5000  ( talk ) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (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.