Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (businessmen)


 * 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 all Mandsford 17:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

List of centenarians (businessmen)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOTDIR. Grouping people by a characteristic that has no relation to their notability or isn't otherwise a common form of grouping them is a strictly defined but non encyclopedic list. The fact that they lived long enough didn't make them more notable, and the fact that some businessmen reach 100 doesn't make the concept of "centenarian" any more notable. We wouldn't keep lists of businessmen with three or more marriages, or businessmen who own an island, or businessmen with three syllables in their first and last name, even though these are also verifiable and limited lists. Fram (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Also nominated for the exact same reason are the "sister" lists and the parent list:
 * List of living centenarians
 * List of centenarians (miscellaneous)
 * List of centenarians (sportspeople)
 * List of centenarians (scientists and mathematicians)
 * List of centenarians (royalty and nobility)
 * List of centenarians (religious figures)
 * List of centenarians (politicians and government servants)
 * List of centenarians (philosophers and theologians)
 * List of centenarians (musicians, composers and music patrons)
 * List of centenarians (military commanders)
 * List of centenarians (medical professionals)
 * List of centenarians (jurists and practitioners of law)
 * List of centenarians (explorers)
 * List of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists)
 * List of centenarians (authors, poets and journalists)
 * List of centenarians (artists)
 * List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers)
 * List of centenarians (activists, non-profit leaders and philanthropists)
 * Lists of centenarians

Fram (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This has already survived Afd at least twice (when there was a single article). The criteria for the lists is explained and is clearly not merely a "(g)rouping people by a characteristic that has no relation to their notability". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the other AfDs, and please explain why it is "clearly not merely" etcetera, as it is not clear to me at all. Fram (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to have Articles for deletion/List of centenarians, which was a no consensus two years ago, Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (2nd nomination) which was a keep one year ago, and Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination), which was a keep some 8 months ago. However, the nomination gave a different argument than mine (size vs. WP:NOTDIR), and the article has now been split into new articles with a specific focus. I don't think the earlier discussions should be taken into account when looking at this one, as they focused on a different problem, not on my reason for nominating them. Fram (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I created all the sublists as a solution to the size problem because at AfD3, other editors seemed unwilling to put in the effort. Other orderings would also be possible, such as List of centenarians (A-B); I simply did it the easiest way.  If there's a consensus that this particular ordering scheme is inappropriate, then any editor is welcome to rewrite them to use a different scheme. As for WP:NOTDIR, that doesn't apply because these are lists of bluelinked articles (see NOTDIR point #2).  Their purpose is navigational, per WP:CLN, and they're encyclopaedic for the same reason that paper encyclopaedias have contents and index pages.  The correct guidelines to apply are WP:SALAT and specifically WP:LISTPEOPLE.   (Note that where any reliable source notes that someone is exceptionally long-lived, then their age is a contributing factor to their notability.)— S Marshall  T/C 11:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't thinking about NOTDIR #2, my concern is NOTDIR #6, "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y"" This is "People known for occupation X with characteristic Y". This is not a logical, encyclopedic navigational method. List iof businessmen (a-b) is a logical index / navigational aid, but a list of businessmen by age isn't (and you would need pages for businessmen who died when they were between 70 and 80 and so on as well, to get a good navigational system: an index that only lists a few people from a category, based on an irrelevant characteristic, is a bad navigational system). Fram (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable criticism to make, and in order to address the problem you're very welcome to rewrite them using an alternative categorisation method (e.g. the previously-suggested List of centenarians (A-B)), after which the versions I created can be deleted under G6.— S Marshall T/C 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Later) Incidentally, could we unbundle List of living centenarians from this multiple-article AfD? In that particular case it seems to me that the fact that they're very old and still alive is a logical and notable intersection and deserves separate consideration.— S Marshall  T/C 12:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states that the members of the list must meet notability guidelines (which they do, as all the members of the list consist of bluelinks); and that membership in the group is notable, which it is, as reaching 100 years of age is not a very common thing for a notable person to do. Bcperson89 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Keep' - There is no reason to delete these. --Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE, no attempt is made to show how notability is established. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the lists I would offer one bit of advice though. Most are quite short so we could probably group them into one article rather than a bunch of lists of less than 10 people each. I would also disagree that being over 100 years old lacks notibility. Less than .5% of the population lives to be that age and there is usually quite a few references for each person so I would contend that would meet the notibility index. --Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Being over 100 years old lacks notability" is true, but that is specifically NOT the only criteria for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all agree with nom, there is no real reason to group people by being a centenarian, why not create an additional group for people in their 90s? LibStar (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all Clearly defined lists, with clear inclusion criteria, on a notable topic. Becoming a centenarian is notable, and all these people are notable in their own right too. These lists were split out from a main list of centenarians sometime ago, due to article size issues.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Where people are otherwise notable per coverage in WP:RS, surpassing the age of 100 is relevant to their notability. Chester Markel (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The organization by area of notability is a good thing from the research point of view and is notable in its own right–consider the number of articles on longevity of orchestra conductors, for example.Matchups 00:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subjects are notable, as is reaching the age of 100. The organisation of these lists is a different discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep we group people by lots of characteristics that have nothing to do with their notability, who says it has to? We have lists and categories for their home towns, their universities, and the cemeteries they are buried in. Look at the categories for any president. We don't add them to list and categories because that is what made them notable, we do it to aid in navigation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all as stated here earlier, whenever a person has an entry at the wikipedia, clearly there is some notability and besides that, it isn't that everybody that is over 100 years old automatically is included. For instance, I created a same sort of list for my discussion page on the Dutch wikipedia, because some of those people are not notable enough to be included in this list. And besides that, I find it a bit annoying that some people find it necessary to nominate this page for deletion every few months. Every time the consensus is very clear to keep it and somehow another person - without really consulting the history of the page I suppose - gives it another try to get rid of it. It's getting ridiculous. Guidje (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Fram, few of these further comments address his actual nomination. Fram is not saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have lists about these people.  He is saying that we shouldn't have these lists.— S Marshall  T/C 12:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of x who are centenarians. - Reaching 100+ draws newspeople to that person to write about them. However, there would seem to be only a limited way to write up information on their age. "They are 100!" "They are 100 and still practicing medicine!" The rest of the reliable source content would be about the person and their medical career, not the age 100+. Wikipedia's bread and butter is reliable source content, not concepts. While age may play a role in generating reliable source content, the main thrust of that reliable source content won't/can't be their age due to the limited ways you can address such matter. In that regard, the above lists have misplaced emphasis. For example, instead of "List of centenarians (sportspeople)", it should be "List of sportspeople who are centenarians." I think that will move Wikipedia forwards in this centenarian intersection area. Once these are renamed, any future AfD disucssions would be less reactionary and more contemplative. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fram, check out :Fram check out Articles for deletion/Active Nonagenarians, Articles for deletion/List of African American supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of American supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of Belgian supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of Irish centenarians, Articles for deletion/List of Italian supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of living centenarians, Articles for deletion/List of living supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of nonagenarians, Articles for deletion/List of people who are nearly centenarians, Articles for deletion/List of people who are nearly supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of people who died before the age of 30 (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of Russian supercentenarians, Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians from the Americas, Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2009., Articles for deletion/People aged over 85, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Nonagenarians, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Octogenarians, Death by age, WikiProject World's Oldest People. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep mostly per Lugnuts, Chester Markel and R.A.Norton above. Reasonable splitting of what would be otherwise an enormously long list. Obvious navigational aids. Being >100 is usually a reason that adds to notability or is anyway discussed. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all, the nom simply doesn't understand these lists or how lists are handled generally on Wikipedia. There are innumerable lists that index biographical articles based on shared biographical facts, not simply the facts for which those people are notable.  These include lists for places of origin, year of birth or death, alumni of educational institutions...  So the fact that the organizing concept of this list is not the basis for the notability of its entries (i.e., they do not have articles because they are centenarians) is not recognized as a valid deletion rationale and is extraordinarily contrary to practice.  As for subdividing by occupation, it's not an unreasonable way to organize the lists, and that's sufficient when all you're doing is subdividing something that would be too long otherwise.  It has nothing to do with whether being a businessman is related to being a centenarian, a really ridiculous straw man argument that, again, shows that the nom does not understand these lists.  I'd prefer them to (also) be subdivided by nationality, as that is a much more standard and more clear cut way to subdivide a classification of people, though Articles for deletion/List of Irish centenarians shows at least a couple people don't think that's valid either.  Luckily it doesn't look like that view will win the day.  postdlf (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Reaching 100 in itself is not notable. Being a businessman is not notable. By what synergy might reaching 100 and being a businessman be notable, or even worth putting in an encyclopedia. In my view, none. All of these lists by profession tell the user of wikipedia precisely nothing new. Continually creating new longevity lists, filtered by irrelevant factors, like profession, birth country, country of residence simply puts all of the same subjects on multiple Wikipedia pages. Listing centenariand by profession makes no more sense than listing the by the pets they own(ed) or the vehicles they drove. Centenarians who owned dogs, Centenarians who owned cats, Centenarians who drove Buicks, Centenarians who drove Yugos, etc. David in DC (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed solution—How about if Fram and I, and anyone else willing to do the work, collaborate on replacing these lists with an alphabetised version or a version by nationality (either of which does seem like a better way). Once that's done, let these lists by profession be removed under G6.— S Marshall  T/C 17:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great solution and thank you for proposing it. I think alphabetical is best. But I've been involved in some tangential contentiousness here that might cause some to find my infuence suspect, so I'd defer to you on this. I'd be happy to help, too, but at least until the ArbCom case is over, my help might similarly be viewed with suspicion. David in DC (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If my proposal gains consensus to implement it, then Arbcom will not censure you for helping with the resulting work.— S Marshall T/C 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being unclear. It's not ArbCom that I think would view my participation as suspect. It's my fellow editors. The World's Oldest People WikiProject sometimes reacts reflexively to the participation in longevity-related edits of anyone they've concluded has an anti-expert bias. I've definitely made it onto that list, despite the fact that the conclusion is inaccurate. As best I can tell, neither you nor Fram have earned their enmity. In my view, editors uninvolved in the current dispute over WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND as it relates to longevity-related articles have a better chance of improving these lists if the editors are clearly untainted by association with the likes of me. If consensus jells to accept your generous offer, it could go a long way toward cutting through the whole longevity fustercluck. I'd like to help, where I can do so without exacerbating the current level of tension. David in DC (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodness me, that's a can of worms that I'm really not anxious to open. :)  Let's just say that I would personally welcome any help in implementing this solution if it gains consensus, and I really don't mind who participates as long as they're being constructive.— S Marshall  T/C 01:39, 29 December 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.