Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTDIR concerns. This is a list of people who are alive who are between 100 and less than 110 years old. I'm not getting into the overall list of centenarians issue, just these people don't make sense in contrast to say List of living supercentenarians which is at least the oldest living people. It's arbitrary. It makes just as much sense to create a "List of living teenagers", ninety year olds and every decade in between. See Articles for deletion/People aged over 85. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is (or ought to be) a list of otherwise notable living people over 100 years of age, which is widely acknowledged as a threshold of significant great age. The percentage of red links is not excessive. Human society and its reliable sources make little distinction between people in their 30s and slightly older people in their 40s. The distinction between people below 100 and the small minority of people 100 years old and and above is widely recognized. Disclosure: I wrote one biography on that list, Glen Dawson, before his 100th birthday, but it was his accomplishments that motivated me, not his age. Study of the oldest among us is justified, though I am aware that there has been misuse of Wikipedia by centenarian enthusiasts. This seems not to be such a case. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then would it make sense to merge this with the supercentenarians? Isn't over 110 also over 100? Both the centenarians and supercentenarians use "over 100" and describe supercentenarians as a subset of centenarians to me. I mean does it really make sense that Irving Kahn would move from one to the other if he lives to December 19, 2015? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At least a merge is worthy of debate. But you didn't propose a merge,, you nominated the list article for deletion. And it is deletion that I oppose. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. Just trying to get a better idea of what the consensus could be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, merging this article with List of living supercentenarians would make NO sense at all. The two lists have completely different inclusion criteria. Living centenarians must be notable enough, regardless of age, to justify a stand-alone wiki article; the only inclusion criteria for supercentenarians is a WP:RS stating that they have reached supercentenarian status (i.e. 110+). DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 23:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Redirecting this article to List of living supercentenarians and then moving the article to add content of the centenarians wouldn't make sense. Also, this list filters the living centenarians from the deceased centenarians, and the List of living supercentenarians contains various cases if the supercentenarians' ages are confirmed or not. Redirecting and moving said article would be worth a shot, but aren't there some unverified cases if some centenarians are alive or not? Snowager (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Clear inclusion criteria on a notable subject. Refine it to only include individuals who have a WP article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Living to become a centenarian is (still) a significant societal threshold. All entries do have Wikipedia articles. Once cross-category queries are properly implemented, this may no longer be necessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Personally I find this all amazing, Living beyond 100yo is IMHO epic, Anyway IMHO It needs improving not deleting – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – In fact, I was originally looking for a list of notable nonagenarians (which I would really welcome), but even if the community should not want that article to exist (although I suggest creating it), this one is certainly worth keeping. It's an extraordinary thing when outstanding human beings stay with us, the rest, for such a long period of time and they can share with us their views of our current time with respect to the early and mid-20th century, as well as their views of these former times equipped with the wisdom and experience they have gained in the course of a century. It's something unique when knowledge and experience is complemented with longevity, which occurrence should not be overlooked. (Let me note that, concerning Stephen Hawking, it's quite a feat to still have him among us even as a "mere" septuagenarian, so I think he'll be remembered in future centuries not only as an eminent theoretical physicist but someone who surpassed seventy and hopefully much more in his condition. In a way, it is a reflection of humankind how long we can help notable people to stay alive and possibly keep contributing to our world with their accumulated knowledge.) Adam78 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was a bit surprised by the nomination, living beyond 100 years is something extraordinary even in 2014. The article is worth keeping and should be improved, but not deleted. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 21:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Same as stated above. Also surprised and even a bit annoyed by this nomination. Every couple of years somebody finds it necessary to nominate this (or a different centenarian-related) article and every time the consensus is to keep it, albeit with some little changes. Adam78, CanadianPaul keeps a list of famous living nonagerians on his personal discussion page, in case you're interested. 12:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidje (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - per Cullen328. I'm concerned by the current desire to just destroy longevity-related articles. Why don't we work on improvement, rather than destruction? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2014 (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.