Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest twins

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an entirely non-notable intersection. Clearly not the topic of any serious discussion, but just a novelty list for hobbyists. Fails WP:N, and violates WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE Griswaldo (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —Griswaldo (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I hate to see a well-sourced article get the boot, although I tend to agree that it's not significant enough to list every instance where two sisters lived past 100 (the table provides anecdotal evidence that twin brothers, or brother-sister twins, don't seem to have the special Wikipedia gene that pre-determines whether someone will have their name mentioned in an online encyclopedia). The Guinness book used to keep records of things like oldest twins, heaviest twins, tallest twins, etc., although a lot of that was because authors Ross and Norris McWhorter were twins.  I'd rather see this redirected to some other twins or centenarians list than to be deleted. Mandsford 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article has 35 references. Years ago, the Lists of people-related deletion crowd nominated one of my articles, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, for essentially the same reasons. It was kept and now is the one of the most popular lists on Wikipedia. This article was created in January 2010, and has developed remarkably since then. I vehemently disagree with the premise that the list in not the topic of any serious discussion. Medical science is replete with twin/longevity studies.--Hokeman (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;There is enough discussion of the topic in other media that I think this intersection deserves to be retained. For example, the topic has been a Guinness record for many years.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What discussion of the "topic" is there in the media? The sources for this entry are almost exclusively very short pieces written about specific sets of twins upon their 100th birthdays.  They do not discuss any topic of "oldest twins."  Only the very oldest pair have their own entry on Wikipedia.  The entry also makes some rather strange claims like, 'The following is a list of the oldest twins ever."  Ever?  Really?  Basically what you have here is a list of living people very nominally notable in local newspapers for being twins and turning 100, all lumped together on a page as if the topic of "oldest twins" were itself notable.Griswaldo (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep The column called "rank" is titled that way for a purpose. The living and deceased cases are cited to one primary source, which maintains the list. This article is both beneficial and intriguing for the curious ones. Every case has been listed and cited in proper format. The article is based upon a worldwide view; no bias is included, whatsoever. I see no reason at ALL even to consider deleting this excellent article. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of OR sourced to a site (twinstuff.com) that obviously is not a reliable source(see also discussion at WP:RSN). Wile it is true that there has been some scientific use of twins in longevity studies, none of those are about specific pairs of twins, nor are they about the oldest twins. Such studies look at intra-twin pair correlations on life span and such and study large groups. The list is also arbitrary, as there are no clear inclusion criteria. When are twins listed? When they get older than 100? 105? 110? 95? 98.3? As Griswaldo says, the sources (apart from the non-reliable twinstuff.com) are all minor local items about a pair of twins turning 100. That's not even significant coverage for that particular pair of twins, let alone for a "list of oldest twins". Ornstein's remark (about one primary source which maintains the list) is as strong a condemnation of an article as I have seen for a long time in any AfD, that's almost the very definition of OR. I realize a lot of people like this kind of lists, but "I like it" is as much of an argument to avoid in an AfD as "I don't like it". --Crusio (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems easy to find evidence of notability such as Twins and supertwins. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are thousands and thousands of sources on twins. But looking at the link you gave, I see not a single one that seems to apply to this list. Could you perhaps be more specific? --Crusio (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work for me, but I'm assuming it's this book - Twins and Supertwins, published in 1967, at a time that none of the twins mentioned on the list were even remotely close to meeting the criteria of inclusion in the list. I don't see what it has to do with longevity in general either.   This appears to me to be yet another Colonel Warden throw away keep vote.  I really wish he would take the time and explain more clearly why he wants this entry kept instead of just linking us into the fog.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone from ANI actually here to agree with your ad hominems, G? Ask yourself that, if simple politeness or logic won't sway you. Sorry to hear you get lost when there is a link in front of you. Working at Wikipedia, that must suck hard. Anarchangel (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That source contains content about the longevity of twins. If you want more sources for the particular twins listed in the current article version then that is easy to find too.  For example, see British twins are oldest in world.  So we have coverage of the topic both in general and in particular.  The assertion of the nomination that this is "entirely non-notable" is clearly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I assume that you can quote from the source about the "longevity of twins" in such a manner that lends notability to the topic? Please do that, it would be very helpful to all of those trying to figure out how to comment here.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The clearest picture of twin longevity is provided by the study of the life histories of about 1400 elderly twins ( all aged sixty or over when the study began ) made by Dr. Kallmann and his associates. Among the conclusions were these...". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That relates to listing twins of 100+ how?  Why no twins aged 70+?  You are making a case for including information about "elderly twins" somewhere but not a list of twins of the arbitrary age of 100 and beyond.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it either: as with all such studies, the researchers are very careful to keep the identities of their subjects confidential. The reference cited is about "twin longevity", clearly not the subject of this list. --Crusio (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The selection of age 100+ is a matter of editorial convenience, not a fundamental aspect of the topic. The key point is that numerous sources have noticed aged twins in various ways and so the topic is notable.  If you don't care for the basis of selection or other aspects of the current treatment then the article is open for editing in the usual way per our editing policy.  Deletion is not an appropriate way of making an editorial point because it is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the entry belongs at all. The fact that I don't like the arbitrary nature of the inclusion criteria does not mean I don't also believe that there are other problems.  I've mentioned the relevant policies in the nomination.  So no, I'm not nominating for deletion just because of that.  Please do not insinuate that this nomination is disruptive.  If you think it is have the courage to say so directly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Colonel, you are a smart person, so you must realize that your previous comment just simply does not answer the preceding questions. Could you please try to be a bit more straightforward? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Disruption is defined as that which "has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article". Deletion would obviously be disruptive because we would lose all this sourced content contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So now you've decided that all AfD nominations are disruption? Unbelievable.  I'm not going to engage in any further discussion with you.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * continued on page 94 &mdash; Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep changed to neutral, see below - While I would prefer a bit more sourcing on the general concept of "oldest twins" rather than the individual twins who are old, which would help show that this isn't too much of a synthesis, the concept is well sourced enough to show it's notability. That being said, maybe an expansion into an article on Longetivity and twins might be in order? (Only, of course, if there are reliable sources to establish that as an article of its own notability.) Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An article about longevity and twins would certainly be possible and interesting. Jerry McClearn at PennState has been doing research in this direction for decades (on the "old-old"). However, this would be completely different from the current list. Colonel Warden has cited some material that is relevant to the topic of "longevity and twins". None of this pertains to individual pairs of twins, which is the subject of the current list. Scientists are interested in "longevity and twins", but they are absolutely not interested in how old a particular pair of twins became. Science is about sizable samples, rarely about individuals. --Crusio (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I guess that's kinda true; while articles about the oldest people in general have lots of sources, they are usually broader than the ones here which don't seem to extend beyond "so and so (and so) are now the world's oldest twins". I'm gonna change my vote to neutral for now as I look into it more.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I and others have also cited material pertaining to individual twins of this sort, which are notable too. You seem to suppose that we are exclusively a work of science but this is not so.  Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and it is explicit policy that it is not a scientific journal. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aging is well covered in reliable sources and there are plenty of viable subtopics related to aging (like longevity and twins). But listing twins who have reached an arbitrary age (100) is not part of the serious study of aging.  People surely realize that 100 years of age bares on special significance outside the fact that it seems very impressive to us.  That record books would pick such an age as meaningful is totally appropriate since they peddle in interesting trivia.  But that doesn't make it a meaningful topic for an encyclopedia.  Crusio is correct, and I would not have nominated a well sourced entry that discusses the science of aging in relation to twins.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (@ CW) Forgive me, when you were citing Dr. Kallman above, I thought you were arguing from a scientific point of view. And the material you have cited for individual twins is exactly that: about individual twins. I sincerely doubt that this stuff would even be sufficient to establish notability for those individual twins, but in any case, it's not about a "list of oldest twins". It is too bad that you use your intelligence to try to make so many confusing arguments, that even I don't recall myself any more what I was trying to say. For a challenged person like me, could you perhaps very succintcly state again why exactly you think WP:GNG is met here? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Crusio you're confused because its a shell game. You expect the answer under one shell but it appears under the other shell every time without fail.  Other than the oldest twins on the list, none of them have their own entries, exactly because they would on their own fail WP:GNG.  The notability of the topic covered by the list cannot be garnered from the sum of a bunch of non-notable parts, but that's what's going on here.  It should, instead, be notable in its own right.  When you ask that question the goal posts move and all of a sudden there are books that show that a different topic is notable altogether ... when you say, yeah but that's a different topic the goal posts move again and all of a sudden we have the sum of non-notable parts.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The key point here is that our presentation does not have to be either/or. We might have both the superlative examples and the results of the scientific studies of large cohorts together and the two would complement each other nicely. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like your own original research. If there were reliable sources discussing both that's one thing, but we don't decide here that two separate things "complement each other nicely".Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Selection of appropriate material for articles is a necessary part of editing. WE are expected to do this in a balanced and informative way per WP:UNDUE.  If we only present one aspect of a topic then this is neither.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Really nothing more than a collection of "it's interesting" trivia. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Guinness only has world records but my Encyclopedia Britannica has traditional encyclopedia entries and lists of longest bridges, and tallest buildings as sidebars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia commonly contain lists of world records and other superlatives and we have plenty such. See List of world's largest cuckoo clocks, for example.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean this encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep. As per NickOrnstein. 62.235.142.162 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — 62.235.142.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * An editor was recently banned from all longevity related entries and I just wonder if there is a connection here.Griswaldo (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. 62.235.159.63 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - refs checks out... i say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Very encyclopedic. You can use this to find the names of the long lived twins, and track down other information about them.  Did they live their lives very similar, eating the same things, etc?  Was it genetics that allowed them to live that long, or environment?  And its gets coverage from reliable sources, so that counts as notable by Wikipedia standards anyway.   D r e a m Focus  05:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: "a novelty list for hobbyists"? Well, that's what an encyclopedia is to some.  A list of former U.S. presidents can subjectively be called the same.  Article seems pretty well sourced and demonstrate that concept is notable enough that deletion would not improve project.--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom & Delete votes being OR ErrORs: There is no substantiating evidence or even qualification added to the nom's assertion of WP:OR, but there is in the comments below, and they, and most AFDs that listed OR as a rationale contain these errors:
 * Conflation
 * Articles requiring editorial oversight are supposed, by this faulty rationale, to be OR - because a rationale for inclusion must be established by editors, as it does on every article on WP, and as written in rules such as RS and V, it is OR to draw the line. Particularly prevalent on List AfDs.
 * General errors
 * A mutant hybrid of appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and slippery slope (Camel's nose, etc) I call Appeal to Incompetence, which warns that editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it.
 * Fundamental error
 * It is probably an error to define anything on WP as OR. What!? you say, but it's really quite simple; it has been rooted out and destroyed since day 1. It barely exists anymore. If it were to ever appear at AFD, there would be 10 inclusionists saying, "this actually is an example of OR, I never see that at AFD". If it shows up in an article and there is anyone to see it, it is deleted immediately. Stop trying to define it in new and original ways. Anarchangel (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment All sources are reliable. I forgot to mention this additional reasoning in my defending statement above. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed again. 62.235.159.63 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (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.