Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Russian supercentenarians

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I am nominating this article for deletion because Russia is known for high exaggerated age claims. The only centenarians whose age has been considered "reasonable" were those that are better known, such as Sergey Nikolsky, or Boris Yefimov. We won't be able to truly identify the oldest person in Russia per person, again because of high exaggerated ages. There have only been very few reasonable ages. There has only been 1 verified supercentenarian from Russia, but he died over 40 years ago, the other 3 validated Russian natives died in a high income economy country. We need to hold off until more Russian supercentenarians become validated. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination is in error. Regardless of whether most Russian claims are verified or not, the article doesn't list them, so that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that "list of supercentenarians" articles are common (there's one for the UK, France, USA, Germany, etc.). This article contributes to answering people's questions, such as "are there Russian supercentenarians"? Ryoung 122 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The nomination points out the limitations of putting up a stand-alone list without sufficient context. Disputed claims are in themselves notable (List of disputed supercentenarian claimants and longevity claims), and as the nominator correctly points out, Russia and the Soviet Union were notorious for exaggerated reports of longevity, something that's very well documented.  I think that rather than trying to lobby for this to be kept as is, it would make more sense for it to be converted to an article about disputes in Russia and the former USSR.  That's just my two rubles worth. Mandsford 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Longevity traditions. JJB 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Why Russia? The Russian supercentenarians are already listed on List of oldest people by nation. There are already sections on the 115+ year old "exaggerated" pages that say why many people like to exaggerate their age. I am supporting a strong deletion on this article.

Then again, we could make a list of "Alleged Russian supercentenarian claimants", as in accordance with Brazilian supercentenarians, or I am thinking we could merge the two into one and title it "Alleged supercentenarian claimants by country". --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They both need deletion as redundant, and when Ryoung argues WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "common"ly, that doesn't mean other stuff isn't on the redundancy-deletion to-do list. He also argues "people might ask", which is equally invalid, especially when answered by List of oldest people by nation as you note. JJB 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What's invalid is JJ's faulty attempt at logic above. The list of oldest people by nation, in effect, lists JUST the oldest persons, whereas a list of supercentenarians lists all persons 110+. Also, let us review similar articles, such as List of French supercentenarians. Not only are they supported and well-kept (in-form) but the idea of such articles came from people at Wikipedia in 2007 who wanted to combine a lot of small articles on individual supercentenarians into larger articles. So, the "form" is not the issue, the issue is "content." Some here feel there isn't enough "content" to support such an article, but I disagree. There's already cases here not listed on the "list of supercentenarians by nation" article, and there will likely be more over time, as more are added.

04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Very, very strong keep Why Russia? The Russian supercentenarians are already listed on List of oldest people by nation., says Nick. NO. There are already multiple Russian supercentenarians, including all those emigrants. It's VERY UNFAIR to dump aside cases like Lina von Veh. Just because an article is short compared to others of the same type doesn't mean it should be deleted. Khasako Dzugayev is the only 'verified' Russian without a complete deathdate. Otherwise, we have three validated supercentenarians of Russian descent. I really think the List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians should be deleted, not this. In case you haven't noticed yet, the page is completely free of trashy claims and still able to get on with a humble four cases. Brendan  ( talk,  contribs ) 02:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Then can we make List of Irish supercentenarians, List of Ecuadorian supercentenarians, and List of Barbadian supercentenarians? We aren't going to find the oldest person by year, which is essential to the pages such as this one (as of now, the Irish supercentenarians article can find oldest per year, but this is just an example). I support very, very, very, strong delete.

Do you want to help me in deleting the Brazilian supercentenarians article? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think either one should be deleted. They serve different purposes.76.17.118.157 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Help you delete WHAT? Okay, I'm sorry I ever said that. I was only making an comparision. Forget it. Nick, I don't think you're getting it. Ecuador, Ireland, and Barbados all have had only one supercentenarian on their rap sheet, and for those it simply isn't worth making their article. For this, there are at least several Russian-descent supercentenarians (even though some are still emigrants). The list is still free of trashy claims that have never managed to bleed their way into that page. The page should stay. Additionally, List of oldest living people by nation simply does not offer enough coverage for the Russians. I vote very, very, very, very strong keep. Brendan  ( talk,  contribs ) 09:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Equally strong delete: Per Brendanology, articles with one verified supercentenarian aren't worth maintaining; the fact that there are emigres also listed here (along with their countries of death as well) is simply the overhypersuperredundancy typical of this topic set. The fact (see longevity traditions) that significant numbers of Russian claims recur back to the 18th century and that they have been categorically debunked by Zhores Medvedev et al. also precludes this article as supplying a misleading context in the longevity template, where it would most likely be seen. I have not yet nominated the Brazilian article yet but I applaud Nick for getting the superfluities dealt with. JJB 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Brendan, there just aren't enough people to make an article on them, in my personal opinion it is a stub. I am not changing my view, Brendan. Very, very, very, very, very strong delete. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How many times are you going to ivote, Nick? You already "voted". Let's hear from some other commenters. Ryoung 122 05:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. A "list" with one person is not a list, no matter how much other tangentially relevant information the article includes.  Anything that's salvageable can (and should) be merged elsewhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 10, 2010; 14:38 (UTC)
 * Comment JJB, stop sucking up to Nick. Brendan  ( talk,  contribs ) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though I personally don't get the purpose for this list, I trust that the grg has good reasons for including it, and they have more experience than i do, so im not gonna get in the way of their progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitydude (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per the grg Longevitydude (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So WP:IKNOWIT? You deleted from your talk page a question about how and what you know when you imply that the GRG itself is influencing WP. I must now repeat more specifically: what is your connection to the GRG e-group, do you communicate with it, what is your connection with Yahoo WOP, what do you know of connections between Yahoo WOP and GRG, have you read WP:COI, do you believe you have a conflict of interest, why or why not? JJB 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More attempts at intimidation by JJBulten. Nick Ornstein is a member of the WOP group too, but you don't have a problem when he "votes" your way, do you?

How about some FACTS: A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE ARE INTERESTED in this subject, not to tear it down, which seems to be your primary motivation here. A lot of people here were on Wikipedia FIRST, and later found the WOP (mostly through search indexes and the 110 Club, not Wikipedia).

Also, just because someone is a member of the WOP (a group for people interested in, wow, the World's Oldest People) doesn't make it a "conflict of interest" any more than your editing religious articles is a conflict of interest because of your religious belief or membership in a church. Ryoung 122 05:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I showed you, I made sure the information would always be somewhere, there no deleting this diff, and yes, im a member of the WOP group, and they know more about longevity and supercentenarians than the rest of us ever will. Longevitydude (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that what you're saying is that you copied the Jan Goossenaerts article to your page as a form of WP:USERFICATION. That's acceptable, but wasn't what I was asking about. I was asking about your deleting (at the same time), without answer, an investigation into your potential conflict of interest. Your failure to answer in full here is not helpful either, nor is your laudation of GRG. Since you argue "per the grg": What is your connection to the GRG e-group, do you communicate with it ..., what do you know of connections between Yahoo WOP and GRG, have you read WP:COI, do you believe you have a conflict of interest, why or why not? JJB 19:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it is ok to copy articles, good to know, I communicate with their members quite a bit, maybe one day i will join the grg, but for now im just a member of their other groupstheir connections are that they have the same members, the grg validates and the WOP group informs us of the information, both are very informative sites, would you like to join? Longevitydude (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * when I have more time ill try to address the conflict of interest, though i thought that would already be obvious as you can read previous comments ive made in the past. Longevitydude (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, please do try to address that. JJB 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, but I think Robert young answered the COI question, Id comment further on it, but I think Robert and some other editors nailed it. Longevitydude (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't, thanks. I see R saying that joining a group, which exists to inform the public (i.e., to advocate certain beliefs) and to "disallow" "false" cases, is not a conflict with working on an encyclopedia that has no advocacy function and avoids making truth judgments about disputed matters. R also implied he knows something about my religious belief and church membership, but he has always failed to source such WP:OR about me. It is also a faulty comparison to connect generic church membership, which is on the order of about a billion people, to Yahoo WOP membership, about a thousand, both in the degree of the org's expressed advocacy and in the degree to which it has been carried out on WP. What I suggest you address yourself is your responsibility to identify any particular changes in your editing style that should be made due to WP:COI. Anyway, the rest is irrelevant to this page and (if necessary) will be brought to other pages. JJB 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, like the other articles about supercentenarians from different countries this one answers the questions "How many Russian supercentenarians ever verified? What was their age and country of death?" I will remove some entries in this article that are not Russia-related (people who were born in Moldova, Lithuania, Ukrain etc but not within present Russian borders.--VAR-loader (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with the article, but there are still no reliable sources, no significant coverage, no independent or seconday coverage, no conflict-of-interest safeguards, no scope definition (what makes a person Russian, what makes a claim trashy), no topic notability, i.e., no sources whatsoever about "list of [verified] Russian supercentenarians", although there's quite a lot already in longevity traditions about unverifieds, but we all agree that is a separate scope. I also suspect WP:OR, recalling the topic of Ryoung122's thesis, but don't need to get into that right now. All the country articles are redundant, so maybe merge all into list of oldest people by nation! JJB 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * JJ, We've heard enough from you. Your original research, trashing of real research, and overall bad behavior (including bringing up tangential false charges against me, the GRG, the WOP, and even LongevityDude, a teenager) is just unconscionable. FACT: this article was created, almost generically, in the same form that we see other supercentenarian/nationality articles, such as List of French supercentenarians. The real conflict of interest is YOU. You've already admitted that you are opposed to modern science in the field of longevity because you believe Biblical myths. Your attempt to tear down any article on longevity that is in the scientific mold is obvious. Ryoung 122 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Ryoung122. You have created an image of Wikipedia for yourself and expect others to conform to that image, and run down others who oppose it in the least bit. You are only too block-happy, rapping other editors (such as me) for NON-EXISTENT violations of WP policy. Your presentation of WP:OR, WP:MOS, WP:CIVILITY to threaten others is also accompanied with your violations of ... WP:OR, WP:MOS, and WP:CIVILITY, among a large number of others. Please stop. Brendan  ( talk,  contribs ) 08:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Except he's not the only one saying this; I can rattle a few others off the top of my head. You should read User:Bwilkins/Essays/All socks; you may find it enlightening. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

New Section
Alright folks. Let's try this. Would anyone who HASN'T lodged their opinion on the AfD post down here. I'd suggest all the usual parties above stop throwing stones at each other while this is being reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete relevant info is already at supercentenarian or can be merged. There are apparently only 26 verified supercentenarians in world history, so separate lists per country is silly.  The ANI threads etc. suggest an ongoing campaign by some users to create undue prominence for this obscure subject by spewing multiple articles about it.  Such articles should be merged to the extent consistent with WP practices on article length and so forth.  69.111.192.233 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per: There are apparently only 26 verified supercentenarians in world history, so separate lists per country is silly.  &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per what Timneu22 said; I was trying to think of how to put it, and that sums it up better than I possibly could. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (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.