Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 08:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

List of centenarians
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is just getting bigger and bigger; it is now more than 150K. Does it have any advantages over Category:Centenarians?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this contains dead centenarians as well, I see the list being impossible to maintain, particularly with advances in medical technology making long life more common (what will this page look like 10 years from now?) Delete. - Chardish (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with maintaining the list-- as new notable centenarians come up, just add them to the list. Where is the maintainability problem? You also make a arguement that in the future there might be more and more centenarians due to medical advances.  If this turns out to be the case, and being a centenarian is no longer something special, then we can deal with that when it happens.  If in 30 years, there are thousands and thousands of notable centenarians, then we can have this discussion again. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - (1) Size of the list is not a problem. It can always be broken out into multiple lists if necessary. (2) Yes, this list has several advantages over the category. (a) It sub-divides the centenarians, (b) it show additional information that can't be accomplished with a cateogry (age, claim to fame, and which ones are still living), (c) it can also be used for redlinks to articles that need to be written, (d) the tables could be made sortable to sort by age, name etc.  I see this as a sourced, useful navigational aid for Centenarians. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep NOT PAPER, we have techniques for handling any size list. If in 10 years from now, 100 years is no longer significant, then we can keep 100 years for the 20th century, and 110 or whatever years for subsequent periods. DGG (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One of our techniques for handling large lists is to move them out of article space and into category space. What do you think the purpose of category space is, and why do you think we don't have an article for every category? - Chardish (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd much rather find things in a large list than a large category--apparently you prefer the opposite. The solution is to have both. DGG (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Large article size is reason to split, not delete. This list also has information that would not be conveyed in a category, like exact age, profession, claims to notabilty other than age, etc. Lists and categories are synergistic. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I now think we should redirect to Oldest people, see discussion below. -- Explodicle  (T/C) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Name 5 articles that this list can be split to. Georgia guy (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That would be a topic better suited for the article's talk page, but just off the top of my head, you could divide it up by ages, say 7 pages for 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105+, and 100+ living. Or you could divide it up by living/non-living or you could split the sub-topics into a few different groups etc.  This can be talked about when it's necessary. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * List of centenarians born 1890-1900, List of French centenarians, List of centenarian businesspeople, and... shoot! I can't think of any more! -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All of those look horribly like unencyclopedic cross-categorizations to me (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY).Locke9k (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - This is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, and doesn't seem to relevant to the deletion discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Why is this any more of an notable or reasonable list than list of ninety year olds? It strikes me at this time as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization between a directory and some kind of age categorization. Locke9k (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, the smaller the list the more reasonable it is, and at a certain point it has to get split up. For example, there is no List of artists but there is a Category:Lists of artists that splits them up into manageable groups. If we were cavemen and living to 60 was noteworthy, we could have an list of them too. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unencyclopedic cross-categorization of notability and age. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Locke9k (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since every person listed on Wikipedia needs to be notable, does that mean that all categories/lists of X people are unencyclopedic cross-categorizations of notability and X? -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, good question. Let me explain my above statement better.  To avoid being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, the unifying subject of a list of people should be the same as the general basis for the listed peoples' notability.  For example, the organizing subject of List of physicists is that the people in the list are all physicists; in addition, each of the people in the list is notable due to the fact that they are physicists.  You can find many more examples of this kind.  On the other hand, the organizing subject of this list is having attained the age of 100, but according to the intro the people in the list explicitly are notable for something aside from their age.  In other words, in the former case, if I were to make a list of people notable for practicing/studying physics, it would be essentially the same as the List of physicists.  In this case, if I were to make a list of people notable specifically for having reached the age of 100, it would likely be entirely different than List of centenarians.  It is therefore fits the bill for a cross-categorization.  Hopefully that addresses the insightful and amusing point you raise above. Locke9k (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. One difference is that the list of physicists is only 37K, whereas this list is 160K. Georgia guy (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Which perhaps indicates that the article should be split, not deleted.SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. What should some of the new articles made by splitting this be titled?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Splitting by nationality is an easy place to start SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like, List of American centenarians?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Why is there this extraordinary focus on the size of this article and on the possibility of splitting? These things have nothing to do with the AFD.  The relevant issue is that this is a directory.  Its not a list of people who are notable for being centenarians; its a list of people who are notable for a wide variety of reasons and just happen to be centenarians as well.  The size is irrelevant; the point is that the article is something WP is very explicitly not, and it should be deleted on that basis. Locke9k (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So Lists of Americans should only list people who are notable for how American they are, and Lists of atheists should only list people who are notable for how atheist they are? -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. I think a general "List of Americans" is exactly something Wikipedia is not -  a directory.  A "List of Americans" is exactly a directory; I can't think of anything that fits that bill more.  Same thing with "List of Atheists".  If there are people such as Richard Dawkins who are in large part prominent due to their outspoken atheism, they belong in that list.  If there is a plumber who is notable because he hold the world record for most toilets plumbed, and there is a side note in his article that he happens to be an atheist, he doesn't belong in that list.  Otherwise, again, it is exactly a directory.  I almost can't imagine anything that could be more of a directory.  I don't see any way around this; it seem to me that do argue otherwise we would have to argue that we should ignore WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Locke9k (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just did some homework and now I'm seeing this a bit more clearly. Lists (stand-alone lists) supports your argument regarding centenarian lists; it even uses Lists of atheists as an example. However, since there are still some people notable only for being centenarians, we should not delete. We should first trim everyone who isn't notable as a centenarian off the list, and then decide to keep/merge/redirect from there. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Such people are at articles such as List of the oldest people, Oldest people, etc. Georgia guy (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for having an open mind. In general your suggestion is a good one, but I'm not sure that its the best approach here for the following reason. The article intro presently reads: "The following is a list of centenarians ... known for reasons other than their longevity." This suggests that there are probably no entrees in this list that would be usable under the new criterion for inclusion; the old criterion is the exact, mutually exclusive opposite of the new one.  Accordingly, there is probably no salveagable material and we could probably delete and recreate as a new list.  Otherwise we would probably end up having to rehash this debate on the talk page over every name in that long list, none of which will end up being included in the new one.  Locke9k (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the larger problem with the 'keep and rework' idea is that there is already a page that covers what you have described: Oldest people. In fact, the List of centenarians contains the following disambiguation statement: "For people known exclusively for attaining extreme ages, see Oldest people." So really we should just delete this article let the Oldest people article do what this one really should, since it already is anyway. Locke9k (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I still think a redirect (and the edit history) may be useful, though. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * @Locke9k - This is not a cross-categorization at all. I see it simply as a list of centenarians; any additional notability for each individual is beside the point. Most certainly they have all been acclaimed for passing the 100-year mark in addition to anything else they have done. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting from Centenarian: "The United States currently has the greatest number of centenarians in the world, numbering over 79,000 in the year 2007." So in your view, any centenarian out of the hundreds of thousands in the world can be put in this list? Locke9k (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The issue of the excessive size of this list has been discussed on its talk page. The consensus was that it should be split and afaik at least one user is attempting to organise suitable separate lists. The issue of whether 100 is a more significant age than 99 or any other age is spurious, it's not as if people, notable or not, are mentioned in the press just for reaching 99. 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list has obvious advantages over the category in that it provides a manner of easily comparing ages without clicking each and every article in the category. If the tables are made sortable, you can also easily see who are the oldest and youngest people on the list (in addition to their lifetime). I also don't see a pressing need to delete based on size, when a solution is being discussed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very useful. I can't wait 'til I make the list! (44 years to go!) Vartanza (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (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.