Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swiss 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   merge to List of European supercentenarians. Courcelles 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Swiss supercentenarians

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(a) Nearly all of the sourced information on this page is duplicated in individual articles. (b) What few source documents are used rely entirely on a single website. In the nominator's view, the website relied upon is a work-in-progress and citation to it constitutes prohibited original research and synthesis. (In fairness, the World's Oldest People WikiProject has been unable to reach consensus about whether the website is a reliable source and the nominator's view is, numerically, a minority one.) (c) Of the six footnotes, three are from a document that has not been updated since 2007. (d) Most of the cells in the second table, Oldest Swiss person by canton, are empty. If Gertrude Stein saw this page, she'd likely conclude that, like the Oakland, California of her time, "[t]he trouble ... is that when you get there, there isn't any there there. David in DC (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —David in DC (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not against lists of supercentenarians specifically because reliable sources frequently publish them: if the editors of the National Geographic or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung think lists of supercentenarians are notable enough to publish and update, and they do, then these lists are also notable for Wikipedia purposes. But sourcing concerns me in this list. The GRG is I'm sure a fine group of people but I'm not seeing any agreement that their work is considered reliable enough by the world in general for them to be considered a reliable source. Edit to add: this specific article also has a Snakes in Iceland problem: there are no supercentenarians living in Switzerland. Is a historical list notable? --NellieBly (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete, keep, merge, or userfy - regardless of result, the Snakes in Iceland reference is worth the price of admission. Thank you for the genuine belly laugh, NB. I concur with your point and admire the wit with which you've made it. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert? If not, Userfy a particular section. I happened to be on Wikipedia today and saw this AfD on my talk page. I loved reading up on the Snakes in Iceland reference, NellieBly. I think what this article sorely needs is a revert back to this version from 14 Sep 2010 (including any in-between updates).  It is quite apparent, for the "Oldest Swiss person by canton" section, that with only 4 out of 26 cantons populated in the list, that section does not currently meet the notability of having of that section to remain.  It should be deleted "for the time being" (userfied, rather).  That said, regardless of whether a country has a current supercentenarian or not, it should not be considered as a criteria for possible deletion based on this alone.  I see that the 3 current references point to GRG (for validation only), but I would think that any Swiss media about a specific person can be used as a reference as well.  Nobody is saying that GRG "can be the only reliable source" about a Swiss case, because this list includes verified and unverified cases.  GRG has no "jurisdiction" of any unverified cases that appear on this article so there should be references for the unverified cases.  Once the references are added, it will not appear like "the entire article is referencing to GRG".  Regards,  Calvin  Ty  21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As part of a wider scheme of supercentenarians by country. So what if this is badly sourced? AfD is not for cleanup - go and fix it! This is a list on a notable topic.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Preferably merge. There is enough well sourced info for lists by continent, but often not enough for lists by country. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Seems like a script could be written to auto-generate a list of notable Swiss supercentenarians based on dates of birth / death, that would be good to see. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into the lists by continent. The problem with just fixing it, Lugnuts, is that 1. we're still in the process of cleaning out a gigantic walled garden, which is involving a lot of condensing and 2. there aren't a lot of sources for this kind of material.  Except in large countries like the US and Germany, where there is considerably more coverage and more resources are dedicated to gerontology research, there isn't much to go on; Switzerland doesn't fall into that category. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalk stalk 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The significant difference between Icelandic snakes and Swiss supercentenarians is that the former likely have never existed, while the latter have existed in the past and simply don't at the moment. No opinion about the rest of the issues with this article, but the fact that all Swiss supercentenarians have died shouldn't be a reason to object to the existence of this article.  Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've the largely empty "by canton" chart. It makes the article suck less.  But I think I see a consensus here to merge what's notable on this page into the European list.  I also think that two relistings is enough. You can't force people to care. The people who do have provided the project with the benefit of their wisdom. David in DC (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2011 (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.