Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Italian supercentenarians

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a list of excessively elderly Italians. I am sorry, but I don't see the notability of this entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete That, and it's likely to fluctuate from month-to-month as people get older and others die. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alone, that's a very unactionable oppose. Are yuo saying that we should delete any article on ITN because it changes so much. Best, &mdash;Ceran  [speak] 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think any list of supercentenarians, regardless of nation, inherently fails WP:NOTNEWS. Remember, not everything covered by RS's is Wikipediaworthy, and simply living long is not a particularly encyclopedic attribute. I am not so naive as to believe this is current consensus--I have seen few arguments based on WP:NOTNEWS succeed lately, yet it remains our policy and should determine the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete --otherlleft (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that if you had left the article for longer than 14 minutes after its creation before nominating it for deletion, it might have developed into something like list of French supercentenarians or list of British supercentenarians? Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think those articles should be considered for deletion as well, for the above reasons. --otherlleft (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Close, & Renominate after a week or so if not improved; keep for now. This kind of rush to assume a article cannot be made is not fair to contributors.DGG' (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Close per comment by Uncle G and renominate if it does not improve. Patience is a virtue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although closing the discussion would be appropriate as well. I honestly don't see anything wrong with nominating an article within 14 minutes after it has been posted, rather than making a nomination later.  The author of the article chose, wisely, to put in a lot of work before posting it.  The nominator raised a valid point as to whether the topic is notable; as Uncle G's response confirms, keeping track of supercentenarians (who have lived at least 110 years) has been an ongoing project on Wikipedia.  Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - fails RS and V. -Kittybrewster &#9742;
 * Keep Although the article isn't the best verified at the moment, it could well become verified: supercentenarians are often notable (if nothing else, because the media tend to cover people who have lived so long), and it has quite well-defined criteria. To answer Jclemens: this article includes already-dead people, so the only maintenance for the death of a person on the list would be to note their death; while there's a template (used near the top of the British list, for example) that automatically updates their ages daily.  Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – the topic is certainly notable and it's not clear why Italians have been picked from Category:Lists of supercentenarians. The British list includes quite a few sections (at the end) for people whose individual articles were afd'd and merged. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Obvious good faith contribution and actually kind of interesting. My major concern would be how this article would stay up to date. Would a section have to be added for "deceased" Italian supercentenarians and as they die they are moved there? Over time, wouldn't that section become large and less useful? --Quartermaster (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as you can see with the British and French lists, dead people on the lists are simply noted as being dead; it's no less helpful to have information on past supercentenarians than it is for living ones. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, (sorry Eco)...I don't think you should of brought it here right after it was created. Give it a week month or so, then bring it back . RockManQ (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep valid topic and common article type here that appears to have concensus for notability. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not recognised as a valid argument for keeping an article. And there is no policy requiring that X-number of days or hours need to pass before a new article is put up for AfD -- the argument for keeping the article because it is brand new is an appeal to sentiment, not a confirmation of policy. Thanks.Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't being used as a reason to keep, but certain classes of articles ARE considered notable by concensus, such as Places (city, village, etc.), High Schools (and higher), and in this case, Supercentenarians. Precedent is not the same as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it is based on previous concensus.   P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 11:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, and I side with User:otherlleft that the other lists could easily be held up for AfD inspection -- I don't believe the other lists were ever challenged for AfD, so it isn't so much a case of precedent as having the other lists flying under the radar. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records and breaking a record for excessive longevity is not synonymous with genuine notability -- particularly when you can compile a list of multiple people who live past 100. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can compile a list of multiple people who have recorded and published music albums as well. And it may be that the other centurian articles have not been up for AFD because there already exists a concensus that the topic is notable.  (implied concensus due to no objections)  An AFD is not required to build concensus, and in fact, it is more of a last ditch effort to build one.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. AfD regulars also know that any article that is brought back immediately after a discussion closes in favour of Keep or No Consensus/Keep will almost automatically receive a Speedy Close. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep this one, as at least it is a list and has sources. British and Frech supercentenarians aren't even a list, rather a bad collection of possibly non-notable people. ~  one of many editorofthewikis ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails numerous policies. Erik the Red  2    21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you please specify which policies and how? This is a discussion, not a vote. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:V. The article relies upon one outdated source of questionable reliability. There is no need for a list of everyone a single HTM document says is over 110. Erik the Red  2    22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Contains giant amounts of original research, fails WP:N and WP:RS, and fails WP:LIST. A list about people who have lived to be a certain age is non notable and does not deserve a page on wikipedia. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: how is this original research? If we have their dates of birth and death, it's not original research to say that they reached age 110.  It's no more original research than would be an unreferenced phrase "10.549 + 54.379 = 64.928": with maths, it's all deduction.  Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The original research is the DOB and DODs. There is one source, a questionable 2007 HTM document.
 * Keep These people are only noteable due to their extreme age 110+, any individual articles would likely remain perma-stubs, so it seems reasonable to put them in a list article. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actually, seems pretty notable in all guises. A list of all these people is helping organize the group as well, so it's not really hurting us in any way. Strong keep. &mdash;Ceran  (Strike! ) 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Votes claiming that age equals notability are false. Age in itself is not covered by any wikipedia notability guidelines. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Give it a chance. We have established lists of supercentenarians; the oldest centenarian ever is a good article. Give it more time to develop, and then we'll see. -- how do you turn this on  21:51, 13 October 2008 (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.