Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of centenarians

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

A list that's just getting bigger and bigger. As living to be 100 becomes more and more common, this age bracket becomes less notable. Georgia guy (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets all of the criteria of WP:LIST and WP:SAL, aside from the fact that we're still in the process of making all the proper citations and thus there is the potential that some names may be removed in the future when we realize that they do not meet the criteria. If this list is too long, then splitting it into several smaller lists and the method for which to do that can be discussed at the talk page, as it frequented by many active editors. AfD, however, is not an appropriate venue for this. Cheers, CP 20:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But how should the articles for the smaller lists be titled?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's something to discuss on a talk page, not an AFD. It could be alphabetically (ie. List of Centenarians A-F) as I believe there is precedent to do, or it could be by occupation, by country etc. etc. List of centenarians could then become Lists of centenarians and link to all the smaller ones.Cheers, CP 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to the To-Do list on the talk page and go to #5. It is very hard, and there is probably no choice. Georgia guy (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This list is longer than Longcat, but it is fairly easy to source and it has a clear cut criterion, so I think it meets WP:LIST. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with above. Informations in this article are easy to find. Article groups people who have common characteristic - long life and that's fair enough. Andrew 18  @  21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The people have nothing in common. There is nothing unique about being a certain age. Ditto for List of octogenarians and List of nonogenarians. Edison (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as violating WP:NOT- according to the centenarian article, there are 85,000 living centenarians in either the U.S. or Japan. Good luck on listing them... and the ones who don't live in either country. B.Wind (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlike lists of supercentenarians, this has a ridiculously huge number of people who could fit: should I list my great-great-uncle, since I know there was something in his local paper some time back when he turned 100 a few months before his death? Assuming that the number in the article mentioned by B.Wind is correct, an article under this title could reasonably be ten times longer than a List of Nauruans would be.  I understand that the list is strictly for people known for being something other than age 100, but still this would be treated better as a category.  Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but redefine who is  is notable enough to be Included on the list or divide list into different topics (i.e. notable centenarians from 19th century, a list of living notable centenarians, etc. etc.).  --Thomas (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Some users that appear to favour deletion seem to be unaware that age is not the sole criteria for inclusion, if someone is not notable enough to have an article before they turn 100 then turning 100 does not make them sufficiently notable to deserve a page or inclusion on the list. The list needs to be split, discussion of how should go on its talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If wiki-notability is a criterion for inclusion, then a catergory would do that authomatically. Better as a cat, with the references put on the subjects pages (so no hard work lost!).Yobmod (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify, this list is more discriminating than simple wiki-notability - it excludes any individuals (as determined by consensus on the talk page) who are not notable for anything other than attaining old age. One rough way we decide this, for example, is asking "if this person did what they did 40 years ago, then died, would they still be notable enough for Wikipedia?" It's a bit subjective, but it's cemented by consensus and it explains why we don't have war veterans, the oldest people, living supercentenarians or "the oldest guy to become an American citizen" etc. on the list. Some cases are contentious and arguable, but generally we're pretty good at reaching a consensus. Cheers, CP 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The quality of notability is seriously diminished by the quantity of folks living beyond 99. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The people listed are notable people, before they became centenarians. Becoming 100 is still a landmark age, and I do not feel that the list is too long as the cases are kept in concise tables, with links to relevant articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Might want to rename the article List of notable centenarians or something similar, to make it obvious that just being a centenarian is not the criterion for inclusion. - Morinao (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is assumed that members of a list like "Centenarians" are notable, and adding that word to the title is discouraged, per Lists. Edison (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete arbitrary list. See WP:LC items 1, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 16 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.