Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of South American 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. Based on a thorough analysis of the sourcing the outcome is pretty clear Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

List of South American supercentenarians

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable synthesis of information. Bull dog123  22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This is a NOTABLE synthesis of information: "supercentenarians" and "South America." We have a popular article for Europe, why not the other continents? Please cut out the bias. Ryoung 122 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This list relies entirely on a raw data dump, maintained on a website that bears none of the indicia of a reliable sources. The data 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.
 * This "source" is self-published raw data.
 * So are this one this one, this one, and this one.
 * That's every "source" the page relies on. The page is simply a vehicle for accreting raw data that its accumulators cannot get published (or at least have not gotten published) in a wiki-kosher reliable source. Deeming this information NOTABLE (in all caps, no less), RY is admirably straight-forward in the "explanation" of his "Keep" !vote. "This is a NOTABLE synthesis of information." This "explanation" seems to me to justify (mandate?) deletion rather than retention.
 * The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument falls of its own weight. The answer may be to nominate the other stuff for deletion, if it springs from the same source(s), in due course. But we review articles one at a time. This one's got no reliable sources and its principal defender proclaims it "NOTABLE synthesis". Is there more to say? David in DC (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per my prior nom quoted below. 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 Zapata, Reynoso, Corbancho. JJB 00:43, 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)
 * 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.