Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people reported to have lived beyond 130


 * 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. The result was   Keep 6 keep - 2 delete  (non-admin closure)   EBE123  talkContribs 11:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC) (non-admin closure) - reclosed to remove afd notice and to add old afd to talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

List of people reported to have lived beyond 130

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is two "stub" articles mixed from the two original articles, which are Longevity claims and Longevity myths. There is no reason combining the two articles. Claimants who are between the ages of 113 and 130 belong on longevity claims, while claimants who are 131 or older belong on longevity myths. Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion as the creator. This is not the only solution, but so long as there is consensus for listing individuals with impossibly long lifespans, then a suitable home needs to be found for them. Longevity myths and longevity claims are problematic articles that were created as part of the Longevity walled garden. The first step in cleaning up the walled garden must be to separate list articles from topic articles. Post the Longevity arbcom, this is an attempt to do that. If Longevity myths and Longevity claims are to survive as topic articles, they should be cleared of their embedded lists. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator may be misguided because he is of the thought that "claims between 113 - 130" neatly belongs to Longevity claims while "claims over 130" belong to longevity myths. That is not how we should categorize those articles.  In fact, those articles explains in the pre-introduction section, this:
 * Longevity claims "This article is about modern, or complete, unvalidated supercentenarian claims."
 * Longevity myths "This article is about historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims."
 * Throughout history, not just biblical times, but even during Roman Empire era as well as Chinese dynasties, there have been reports of people living hundreds of years. I agree with Itsmejudith that they need a suitable home (article) for them.  Right now, neither "claims" or "myths" seem appropriate so that is why I liked this particular article by Itsmejudith.  Perhaps it is time to AfD longevity myths instead, and incorporate the changes into this article.  We may benefit for a rename, though, from the current "List of people reported to have lived beyond 130" to something like above, "Historical, incomplete unvalidated supercentenarian claims" -- or even better, in my opinion --:  "Historical cases of extreme human longevity"?  That way, we don't automatically place a "myth" label on those cases, because we honestly cannot sit here in 2011 and say all of those cases from BCE and/or CE are 100% myths!  Regards,  Calvin  Ty  15:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. As I understand WP:LIST, this seems to fit in fairly OK.  Pretty comprehensive.  THough, shortening up some of the details where there are articles isn't a bad idea. =^_^= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as appropriate way to organize this information, avoiding the original research implication of articles entitled "myths" or "claims". Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it is duplicating much of Longevity myths. Why 130? The article contains Biblical characters are 100+. Would a report of aworld record breaking 127 not be notable? Unavoidable issues of WP:UNDUE, I haven't got the edition of World records cited but the next edition makes it very clear that many of the claims are not of this age, yet, it is used for a citation without qualification. It should be noted that none of the claims has any scientific foundation. Surely, this would be better handled by an article commenting on longevity rather than a specific amalgamation of lists.Tetron76 (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article seems fine to me; if anything, I'd say Longevity myths is the one that should be deleted as redundant to this one (and possibly POV). Yes, the cut-off point of 130 years is pretty arbitrary, but I think that's going to be inevitable in this subject area - if it was extended to 'List of people reported to have lived beyond 120', say, it would be just as arbitary. A cut-off has to be drawn somewhere, to distinguish these dubious and legendary cases from more plausible ones, and 130 years is as good a point as any. Robofish (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tetron76. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Robofish. Agreed about Longevity myths being the one to be deleted.  This article here may benefit from a non-arbitrary rename, not mentioning cut-off number in title itself.  Instead, the cut-off number of 120 or 130, etc, can be stated inside the article.  Still stand by my earlier comment that a rename to something like "Historical cases of extreme human longevity" would be good.  Cheers,  Calvin  Ty  12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 130 is actually a good cutoff number, because people have been verified to have lived into their early 120s before, but never beyond that point. This list appears to be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:LIST. On the other hand, Longevity myths appears to be a problematic article, as noted by others above; I would support that page's deletion and redirection to this list. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:56, 17 April 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.