Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who are nearly supercentenarians


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

List of people who are nearly supercentenarians
What is this article?? It appears to try to list everyone whose age either at the present or at death is 108 or 109 and has a large majority of the links ghost links. 66.245.118.178 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we delete THIS list too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_Veterans_of_the_Second_World_War

The number of surviving veterans of the Second World War is several MILLION. Do we really need this? 131.96.15.51 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that user 65.93.29.176 has fanatically pounded out MORE THAN 100 EDITS IN THE LAST FIVE DAYS, most involving the subjects of longevity. While some edits have been useful, user 65.93.29.176 has consistently favored the "myth of aging" discourse, plagiarized Guinness World Records and other sources, and refused to respond to requests for using th talk or discussion boards.  I move that User 65.93.29.176 be warned that continued activities that favor anti-science positions, coupled with a refusal to discuss, cooperate, or even identify hismelf should result in a current warning of possible future suspensions of rights. Ryoung122 18:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't copyright a list of names, can you? A bigger question is, is this list useful information for an encyclopedia? My thoughts are maybe. Keep. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC) First of all...I gave permission to use the list if the source is cited, so deleting the source is not a good solution. Second...if it's currently in order of age (109 years 364 days, 109 years 358 days etc), why not just keep it in the order that it's in?
 * Delete - "this table is copied..." Blatent copyvio. --CastAStone 00:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to delete. After reading the remainder of the discussion below, I have changed my mind on this one. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

However, the biggest argument is, if you are going to list people aged 109, why not list the 870+ people aged 110+? Ryoung122 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Mostly RedLinks in that list --JAranda &#124; watz sup 02:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because this page is on a wired topic doesn't mean we should delete it. Also, red links just mean that we can make our database even bigger.  Red links are potential.  I think that although this is unimportant, there is no harm in having it.  Tobyk777 03:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Supercentenarian has had enough debates because its getting really long.  There are even more of these people and its getting to be commonplace now so it doesn't define them as notable.  The red links don't seem like they will ever be encyclopedic and that is why this should be deleted. gren グレン 03:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this, as "nearly supercentenarian" is totally an idiosyncratic non-topic. The Literate Engineer 06:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anyone who's over 100 years old is notable. (A supercentenarian is someone who's 110.) - Sensor 11:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * THERE ARE OVER 135,000 living people worldwide aged 100 and over. BY 2050 the number should be 4 million. Age 100 is not in itself notable, which is why age 110 has become the new standard.  I only agree with lising "famous centenarians" such as Bob Hope. Ryoung122 17:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether being a centenarian makes a person notable or not (and I disagree with the assertion that it does, especially as it becomes more common with better medicine) is, I think, irrelevant to the discussion of a list of such people. Notability would matter regarding the individual articles about specific people, but a list isn't automatically worthy of being kept (or compiled to begin with) simply because many, most, or even all, of the listed items are deserving of articles on an individual basis.  The Literate Engineer 16:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as "nearly supercentenarian" is meaningless. (I'd vote delete on List of people who are supercentenarians too, on different grounds.) Rd232 talk 12:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and reformat. People over 100 years old are certainly encyclopedic, but "nearly supercentenarian" is not specific enough. The article should set a specific boundary (probably 100 years) as arbitrary cut-off. - Mgm|(talk) 14:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You are missing the whole point. The U.S. currently has 50,000 centenarians, Japan has 25,000.  Age 100 in itself is NOT NOTABLE.  I think age 110 might be, but we don't even have a list of 110 or older (yet).  So why is there a list of "almost 110" if no list of "110+".  Second, "Almost supercentenarians" means "almost."  What is almost?  For my list, I defined the cutoff point as anyone within 90 days of reaching age 110 (or 75% of the way from age 109 to age 110), since some people like to "round up" ages.  However, this copier has added in people aged less than 109.75 years, some as young as 107.  Since only 6% of people aged 107 reach age 110, I certainly would NOT consider age 107 to be "almost" 110.  Incidentally, Japan currently has 101 people aged 108 or over, living, not to mention the deceased.  The number of people who died at age 108 or 109 worldwide can be estimated at 3,480 (assuming 50% death rates at age 108 and 109, based on validated list of 870 people reaching age 110).

Then of course, maybe we could have a list of baseball pitchers who "almost" won 300 games, football teams that "almost" won the SuperBowl, people that "almost" died in the WTC. I decline to vote because I think a list in order of age wouldn't be too bad, but there should be at minimum source links and a consistent pattern of organization (either by age, by chronological order with an age minimum, or by alphabetical order with age minimum). Ryoung122 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic list, copyvio. Andrew pmk | Talk 15:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't really think we should have a list of people who are "nearly" anything. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Starblind. Also, Setting aside that this is a list of people who are nearly notable, this would be a pretty difficult-to-maintain and subjective list. Lord Bob 16:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. People who are supercentenarians, maybe, but people who aren't quite notable for that - no. Are we going to have a list of 'people who are nearly notable scientists'? Average Earthman 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete this is just silly. I'd consider voting yes if it was "List of supercentenarians" chowells 20:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per RYoung122 and Starblind. --Icarus 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-encyclopedic, vague in definition and possible copyright violation. Jtmichcock 05:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. As per all above there is nothing notable about this anymore. Plus problems of verifiability. Don't see how the info is even useful to anyone.JJay 11:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there's a List of people who are nearly centenarians, can't there be a list of people who are nearly supercentenarians? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.29.176 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 23 October 2005
 * Comment. One difference is that the list of people who are nearly centenarians is a list of famous people, plus there seems to be a minimum age point of 99 for that list.  Consequently, the "list of people who are nearly supercentenarians" is mostly a list of people famous only for old age, with a few "famous" cases thrown in.  My problem is not with the list per se, but user 65.93.29.176, who based on his massive time available, infatuation with stats, and immaturity (refusing to discuss issues with others, or to see both sides of an issue) suggests he is a teenager.  The list, if kept, should be formatted according to a pre-set standard of who qualifies: age 109?  Age 109.5?  What is "nearly?"  Second, shouldn't a "list of people who are supercentenarians" be tried first, to see whether it would float as a viable entity? Third, if kept, the list should either be formatted, as stated, by alphabetical order, chronological order, or by age (oldest first).  The World Almanac lists tallest buildings in order of height, and highest mountains in order of height.  Baseball's 300-game winners are listed in order of victories.  The problem is not a list per se, but whether it is organized according to systematic criteria or no.172.159.204.208 19:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. I'm adding that to AfD now. Lord Bob 17:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per JJay and other arguments above. MCB 18:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments at Articles for deletion/List of people who are nearly centenarians. Chick Bowen 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This information may be useful if organized properly,as an addendum to a "supercentenarians" list, but the childish teenage infatuation with having one's own way precludes this list from being maintained according to standards. Lately, someone tried to add Eli Shadrack, a claim to age 108 now debunked (by his own family) as fraudulent. 131.96.15.51 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per arguments so far. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it's nealy encyclopaedic, but not quite-- red stucco 09:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete!!!--Too many actual supercentenarians have articles already...people notable for their longevity alone should get entries only for truly remarkable longevity and someone who's not among the top 800 ever certainly doesn't qualify.For anyone in this age bracket who qualifies for another reason,their notoriety should be filed under that,not age,and they may be listed under Centenarian.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. It should be called, "List of people who are not supercentenarians".

HA HA HA! Let's start listing the 100 billion people who have ever lived on this planet.

NOT!


 * 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.