Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins (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 delete. As pointed out in the nomination, there are several issues with this article that cannot be fixed here. If a 3rd party list existed separately, that would be another story. Tone 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

List of oldest twins
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. No established notability of the list per WP:LISTN, as none of the provided sources discusses a list of oldest twins. The only cited source that is a list, http://www.grg.org/EAKralTwins.htm, has not been updated since 2012. This article is a WP:SYNTHESIS juxtaposition of occasional "old twins" cases reported by local press. Most sources for "known living" twins are several years old, and therefore provide no assurance that these people are still alive. In summary, I do not believe this article can be saved. — JFG talk 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep As with Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination), the nomination fails to address the previous nomination which had a result of "KEEP". This is therefore a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD.  As the nomination hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, we needn't waste our time on the detail.  Twins have been extensively studied per twin study and it seems likely that their longevity will be of especial interest to establish the extent to which nature versus nurture affects lifespan. Andrew D. (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD happened in 2011; it is perfectly legitimate to conduct a new discussion after several years. WP:Consensus can change. — JFG talk 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia had improved somewhat between 2005 and 2011, but the fact that even as late as October 2012 the deletion of the crap fanispamcruftisement article was still controversial proves we definitely weren't "there" yet. Not only can consensus change, but in cases like this it can practically be taken as a given. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's nothing on what this page looked like then. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  14:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, but the 2011 discussion shouldn't hold much weight; at that time the Gerontology Research Group army of acolytes, as stated here, treated this subject as their playground and ran roughshod over basic policy. The consensus then has no bearing on the current view of how to handle this subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of references in the article. The news media considers it notable enough to talk about them for being twins and over a hundred years old.  If that many new sources around the world cover such things, then it clearly is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.   D r e a m Focus  04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @  D r e a m Focus  You're comparing apples and oranges. Read WP:LISTN and then think about the fact that these media articles talk only about specific local cases, not large groups of twins ranked by age, which is what is being done on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It proves it is a topic that is notable. That anyone who achieves this anywhere in the world will get news coverage.   D r e a m Focus  14:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your blanket statement is obviously false and shows that you do not understand how any of this works. Just because there is sporadic local coverage about old twins "over there" does not mean a list of oldest twins is suddenly notable "over here". To have a list like this on Wikipedia, there needs to be WP:SIGCOV reliable sources that LIST people in this same manor, but there aren't because this article is fancruft and not based on applicable coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt its just local newspaper coverage, but state and national coverage at times as well. Anyway, it also gets coverage in books such as being a regular entry in Guinness World Records.  Google book search for "oldest twins" "Guinness World Records" and you'll find different yearly editions covering that.   D r e a m Focus  14:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked up the record in Guinness and while they do give out records for the oldest living male and female sets of twins, that does not prove your point, but mine. They have no LIST of oldest twins by age as far as I can tell, which is what would be necessary for this article to exist. You don't seem to understand that the topic of old twins getting coverage does nothing to justify this article because sustained WP:SIGCOV reliable sources do not specifically group people this way. It's APPLES and Oranges. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete an example of an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This article fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is just a WP:SYNTH of various news reports about random cases of old twins, but WP:RS, other then an old GRG table which does nothing to prove notability, don't group people in this format, so there is no justification that we should do so here on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep subject easily meets WP:GNG - covered by many major news outlets. WP:NOTPAPER   Lubbad85   (☎) 23:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @  Lubbad85   (☎) What major news outlets or other reliable sources publish long lists of oldest twins ranked by age? Only longevity fan sites do, hence why this article fails WP:LISTN. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, but I can't see how anyone could possibly support the maintenance of an article that assumes a pair of twins who turned 100 in 2013 are still alive, and that calculates their age as of right now, and presumably would not allow for the removal of such persons without a source specifically verifying that one of them has died. This is such an obvious violation of so many Wikipedia policies (V, NOR, BLP...) that anyone seriously arguing that this content be kept (let alone speedily kept) should probably have their contributions thoroughly scrutinized by the community to ensure that they have not violated these policies elsewhere on the site. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- As Hijiri points out, this is a nightmare from a maintenance and WP:V standpoint. As well as that, it is a load of WP:SYNTH. Reyk YO! 08:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, about a perfect example of a pointless list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Indiscriminate collection of news snippets. This pretends to be an overview but is not, only a random accumulation. How do we know they are alive ? Do they send profs of life to some central data collection center ? And what could be the encyclopedic value of this kind of list ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete an indiscriminate list that appears to be WP:OR. I'm not sure any reliable sources cover this topic - I only found one in a before search and it doesn't appear reliable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:41, 5 June 2019 (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.