Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of centenarians
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A huge list, 200KB. It has now been a full year since the previous nomination got its consensus to keep, and still this article is just getting bigger. How big will it be a year from now?? Anyone who votes to keep please make sure you know of a way to reduce this article's size. Georgia guy (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Being a big list is not a reason to delete and AFD is not cleanup. Also, even though I am under no obligation to propose solutions just because I'm voting keep, I would point out that had you looked at the talk page before you jumped straight to deletion, you would have noticed that we've been making progress cleaning up the list (removing entries, even the entire "Relative of someone famous" section) in preparation to split the list into three different pages, which I have proposed here: User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (A-H), User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (I-R), User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (S-Z). Canadian   Paul  15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, why couldn't you create the new pages right away?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mainly just cleanup issues now - we've had some objections to splitting the list by this criteria, but they haven't been perused as of late. The only remaining issue is what to do with the misc. section, but I've been occupied with the WP:GAN backlog elimination drive and no one else has stepped up to the plate. It can be taken care of in May, as Wikipedia has no deadline. Canadian   Paul  15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the objections?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because no valid reason to delete is cited. The nominator says "anyone who votes to keep please make sure you know of a way to reduce this article's size"; but with intelligent structure Wikipedia can manage much larger lists than this.  Using nested lists, we have a list with 213015 elements.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But that list is an index to a group of normal lists. The list of centenarians is one huge list. Georgia guy (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a problem we can fix without deletion, by creating sublists. WP:BEFORE tells us that where we can fix problems without deletion, we should.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you fix this problem yourself by creating sublists of the list of centenarians?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and so could you, with less effort than you've already devoted to this AfD. It's really very easy.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suggest someone do so if this article survives Afd. Georgia guy (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay, "someone" has done it already. :-) The new page could use some reformatting work and the sublists would benefit from a nice navbox, if you're feeling creative.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: why not have a "list of 40 year olds from Pennsylvania" list? It seems to have absolutely as much relevance as this list. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Being a big article is no reason for deletion. Clearly defined list with set inclusion criteria for a notable topic.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you still have voted as such even if this article were 500 KB?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, cite WP:NOT. How is a list of mostly non-notable people a notable list? This list will always be incomplete, and the people listed cannot be validated for notability. My grandmother is 98... should I add her to the list in two years? Of course not, and neither should anyone else add theirs. This article is pure rubbish. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an article. It's a list.  Individual elements of a list need not be notable.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It is still a nonsense list. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And truly, I'd like an answer: should I add my grandmother in two years? I think this list (and the potential to add random people to it) is absolutely against all WP notability guidelines. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does your grandmother have a Wikipedia page? If not, then no. As you can tell by reading the talk page, or even looking at the article, all subjects must have an English-language Wikipedia article to be included. Besides, it's not that bad; at least you have to have said article to be added. I can't imagine what you must think of some of the lists on this template. Canadian   Paul  00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that the AFD was primarily because this list is "too long", which could quickly be corrected. However, even if this list includes only notable people, why is it relevant that they lived to be 100?? Quite simply, it isn't. It's an arbitrary number, and makes a worthless encylcopedic topic. There is room for list/category overlap, but in this case I don't see why either is necessary. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete list is inherently not notable. We are WP:NOT a directory of non-notables.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only individuals with Wikipedia articles are listed. It was called "List of notable centenarians" for a while, but then someone came and moved it back to just "List of centenarians" saying that it violated the naming guidelines. Canadian  Paul  00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The main reason for deletion is that it was too big. The fact that it was a year since the last nomination is rather petty. The issues that needed resolving before splitting the list were almost complete and it would probably have been split within a few more weeks. In any case, it has now been split and as this article is the "parent" article for the new lists it makes NO sense to delete it. (Talk Contribs) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well defined criteria, the subject of the list is extremely notable, as most cultures on earth honor those who reach 100. as long as the list is only notable people (whether for their age, as in the oldest on earth in various categories, or notable for other reasons), its fine. as to length: not a reason for deletion. if WP/internet/tech civilization remains in human society for 10000 years, wont nearly all lists capable of growing become much bigger by orders of magnitude? even nobel laureates would become unwieldy by that time. we can decide in the future to trim back or reorganize any of our lists, but once something is notable it will always be considered notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Before Wikipedia existed, the Biography Index kept lists of famous centenarians. The New York Times, for many decades, kept indexes of persons 90+. Ryoung 122 04:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  that a list is too long is no more a reason to delete it than a long article. We find some way of dealing with it, but not deletion. I'd say we were not paper, except  that even if we were we could handle it.  As with all such lists, the "notable" is presumed. Personally, I think it should be moved back to the original name, and that the guidelines should if necessary be reversed, and require that addition  DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is quite large; however, as was mentioned many times previously, that does not mean it should be deleted. Bcperson89 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The sections of the list have each been split into their own articles. Bcperson89 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Most of the persons on this list are notable centenarians. Ofcourse, when you're Dutch you have no idea how notable an American mayor is, and the other way around most Americans wouldn't know a Dutch news reader who reaches the age of 100. And as said before, deleting an article because it's too big is quite strange. Guidje (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Following behind Bcperson89's work, I have modified the navbox to include the various lists, and I updated each of the sub lists to include a proper header as well as the navbox. It certainly looks like this AFD will be keep now; might I suggest that this article is renamed to Lists of centenarians? Since it is nothing more than a list of lists, this seems appropriate. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support that, after the AFD has run its course of course. Canadian   Paul  16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though I run the "Noted Nonagenarians and Centenarians" website, I did NOT create this article and I don't give a rat's hindquarters if you keep it, delete it, or make copies and shoot them all into outer space! Better yet, why don't you delete Wikipedia all together? The fact that you folks think you're doing anything "scholarly" is laugh-out-loud funny and pathetic at the same time. What's even more pathetic is that I - who should know better - try and help you out. You're beyond hope. It's like trying to put out a blazing inferno with a glass of water. When I think of all the thousands of articles out there that you folks allow that would be looked down upon by a second-grader or written by some non-English speaker who couldn't even communicate that he wanted directions to the bathroom makes my head want to explode! You people can worry and fret all you want to. Please leave me out of it!!! Walter Breitzke (talk) 05:34, 28 April 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.