Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians from Asia


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Redirecting/merging can be discussed through normal channels, and should always be considered prior to starting an AFD, per policy. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians from Asia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list simply duplicates List of Japanese supercentenarians except for the short list at the end of old people who don't live in Asia anymore and are covered on other lists just fine.

The list lacks all credibility for it's title. The population of Japan is only 2.9% of Asia yet according to this list Japanese people represent 100% of the oldest people both living and dead in Asia ever. If this list is correct, major media should be digging into this amazing "fact" that Japanese genes are required to live past 110 years old and all other Asians are genetically inferior. I propose we delete this unless and until someone figures out how to cover the other 97% of the really old people in Asia properly. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for lack of a valid rationale. The accuracy of the list is not something to be addressed by an Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your vote means little with no answer to the rational given. It duplicates another list and is obviously and by design hopelessly incomplete and misleading. Needs to be TNT'd Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, where list A is a superset of list B, and A-B is very small, it makes the most sense to delete list B. Thus I suggest you withdraw this nomination and nominate instead List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians. EEng (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered that but then we would need to move this to the Japan title. It's all Japanese. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. After checking that everyone on the Japan list is also here, we'd just redirect the Japan list here. This way, if (say) a Korean supercent is found, that can be accommodated. EEng (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How does redirecting the Japan list to this article solve the problem this article covers only 3% of Asia? Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a problem; the problem is multiple overlapping lists, so that the same person is confusingly duplicated here and there depending on the whims of people creating these lists, which slice and dice things in random ways. Someone looking at the Japan list might well wonder whether there are any supercents in Asia outside Japan; if we've deleted the Asia list, there won't be anywhere to look for the answer to that question. (I don't see any sensible place to redirect the Asia list if it's deleted.) On the the other hand, if we merge Japan into Asia, with a redirect, people get the answer to their question whether they're interested either in Japan only, or in Asia generally.
 * Honestly, this is another example of why there should just be one gigantic list of all supercents, which can be searched and sorted at will by the reader. EEng (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok with an appropriate note clearly stating how Japan has all the "verified" superold, we can redirect Japan to Asia. I'll WITHDRAW and do that. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep We follow what the reliable sources say and not the doubts of an editor. That there are no credible Chinese verification need to be addressed via reliable sources. Vivexdino (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2015 (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.