Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died before 1980


 * 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. Deleting all. The deletion of such lists was endorsed at the recent DRV discussion. MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians who died before 1980

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Listing the remaining pages following the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2012) which is still at DRV but let's go with it. I don't agree that it's a copyright violation but I still think the remaining issues are the same. I don't think these qualify per WP:CSC. Finally, it's not clear to me why their year of death is a logical or useful organization of these people, as there isn't any other sources that have listings this way other than that the GRG organizes them that way. It's a list of all people who died in each year that happened to live for 110 years before that, and one could equally have similar lists by year of birth which I guess is the only other important fact about these people. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First, regarding of the number of people who just state it, these people aren't considered notable by the mere fact that they lived to age 110. A number of independent articles on them have not survived AFD. Centenarians are based on separate notability, not just the fact that they lived to age 100 (which I think most people would considered a more "valuable" criteria than 110).
 * Second, the question of the accuracy of these "supercentenarian" claims is not certain or clear. There exists the GRG as a source for these people's birth and death dates but there are other reliable sources and people who's claims are just dumped over at longevity claims that may or may not be included here. Just saying "a list of supercentenarians" is not as easy as it sounds.
 * Third, I don't see the support to spin these off from the generic death in year X pages. Looking at Category:2012 deaths as we did for the 2012 page, we only have law enforcement killings and members of the House of Representatives as separate death categories. The House members are themselves notable so those lists make sense. The law enforcement lists are accurately split further and further by month and are at least discussed based on reliable sources. Of course, deleting or merging these to the typical deaths in year X category would eliminate all the non-separate (and I'd argue non-notable) individuals but that's because being living to age 110 isn't inherently notable. In contrast, these tables are largely sourced to the GRG's tables, which is entirely based on the individual's family voluntarily giving up personal information to the GRG before the GRG approves (or "validates") the claim (at least that's what I've been told by individuals here about the GRG since the GRG does not actually provide details on what their methods are). It's self-selecting criteria in a sense.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete with any notable people's names to be added to the general year of death lists of course. The DRV closed as endorsed, so after a full on debate x2 on the sample article, there is nothing much left to say except I 100% endorse that these lists are a full on copy vio Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable lists of non-notable people, and very likely copyvios. Any coverage in reliable sources for these people generally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Pburka (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT.  CatcherStorm    talk   09:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - These pages are only robotically exported views from the GRG database http://www.grg.org/Adams/A.HTM. remark 1. Using the date of death as criterion is sound, since dying was the only feat of arms of the listed people. remark 2. In the GRG database, the most interresting part is the description of how each data piece was collected... but these details have been stripped off here, to mask the robotic copy. Pldx1 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Textbook listcruft, complete with arbitrary time windows unsupported by reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely arbitrary listcruft. Given how contentious this topic area is, I would like to strongly caution against a SNOW close, as it will almost certainly be challenged. ~ RobTalk 01:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and per the reasons stated by other posters here, the reasons stated in the close to the test case for 2012 and the reasons endorsed when the 2012 delete decision was considered at deletion review. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Maximum lifespans are a very important topic on aging research, Informing the public about the scientific reality about aging is crucial to humanity. /Longevityresearcher
 * These lists are WP:RAWDATA. That's useful for researchers, but not so much for the general public, or, more importantly, for an encyclopedia. Pburka (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the argument I made at Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2012: this appears as WP:LISTCRUFT to me - most, of course, do receive obituaries of some type, but this lies far outside of the idea of counting how many died within a particular cycle of 365 days, interest in which I do not see in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Supercentenarians who are notable for their coverage will appear in the respective "Deaths in...." article, the rest who did not meet the criteria for some other list fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Canadian   Paul  16:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete 1. These lists fail WP:RAWDATA, as do not contain sufficient explanatory text to put "statistics" within the articles in their proper context for a general reader. 2. Non-encyclopedically cross-correlates supercentenarians and year / decade etc. of death, a connection of no fundamental relevancy. That's pretty obvious inherently. But it's also pointed out on the GRG site itself, from which these raw lists are copied over. If all of the GRG caveats are ported over, fails WP:NOTMIRROR, if they don't fail that already. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2016 (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.