Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2009


 * 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 and change to title to include verified.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians who died in 2009

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Aside from the fact that this is technically a list of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009, and not a list of anyone who claimed to be 110+ who died in 2009, I believe that this list violates WP:SAL, which requires that lists of people are selected for notability. Many of these individuals have little-to-no non-trivial coverage about them, aside from the occasional local news stories, and those that are notable have the same amount of information available on them on this page as they would on any of the pages located at Template:Longevity. Cheers, CP 23:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: the list could be renamed to "verified", so that is not a major issue. This list does serve a purpose of organizing a lot of information into a small space, which is the purpose of a list. Also, I disagree with the "notability" requirement...according to the 2007 debates with such articles such as "list of oldest people from Britain" it was decided that individual notability was not needed/required, so long as group notabily existed.

Finally, it should be mentioned that supercentenarians are extremely rare, much rarer than, for example, 'actors' or 'college football players.' Ryoung 122 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The only thing notable about the majority of entries on this list appears to be the age of the deceased - I'm not sure that such a list is really necessary. That said, if this is deleted, then so too should any number of similar lists - List of verified living supercentenarians, 2008 deaths, 2007 deaths etc.  DB 103245 talk 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep How is this any different from the other lists of supercentenarians who died a certain year? Longevitydude (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct, it's not. If no one has any objections or has any particular ones that they feel are different from the rest, then I will add all of the "List of supercentenarians who died in..." list tomorrow. Cheers, CP 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If we delete this, then we should delete all the other lists of people who died, how does this fail Template:Longevity or anything else you mentioned, there is no good reason for this afd, I think the real deal here is that CP just doesnt like articles on old people, I ask once more, KEEP THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!! Longevitydude (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't like articles on old people, that's why I've brought five of them up to Good Article status in addition to the many hours of work I've put into list of centenarians. Please keep our policy on no personal attacks in mind if you would like to contribute to this discussion further, thank you and Cheers, CP 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We shouldnt delete this article, a lot of people like it. Longevitydude (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree that the list should be kept, please read WP:ILIKEIT. "People like it/don't like it" is not a serious argument for AfDs.-- Cycl o pia -  talk  20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How is this list any different from all the other lists? If you delete this, youll hava to delete all the other lists of supercentenarians who died in a certain year as well as anything else that lists dead people, and any other list in general for that matter. Longevitydude (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." If being a supercentenarian in life is not inherently notable, then it should not be in death either. Location (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but living to be a supercentenarian is very notable, not very many people accomplish such an amazing feat. Longevitydude (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confusing what is notable to you with what is notable by encyclopedic standards (i.e. WP:N). As a percentage of the total population, not many people live to be a supercentenarian; however, the "accomplishment" is not that unusual if you look at the sheer numbers of people who have achieved supercentenarian-status. If it were, then Wikipedia would probably have articles on all of them. Location (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are some who accomplish something aren't notable doesn't mean that the accomplishment isn't notable. Just because not all of the supercentenarians are notable doesn't mean being a supercentenarian isn't notable.Think of actors, for example, not all of them are notable enough for articles, but isn't being an actor still notable? The point I'm trying to make is that something can be notable even if there are some who accomplish it that aren't notable, you say most supercentenarians aren't notable, well not all longevity claims or myths are notable, but that doesn't mean longevity claims and longevity myths aren't notable. I hope you understand by now that even though most supercentenarians aren't notable doesn't mean supercentenarians aren't notable.The list of examples are endless, but one thing they have in common is that even though most who accomplish them aren't notable, the subject itself is still notable. Longevitydude (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Living that long is very rare, so its a notable achievement in itself.   D r e a m Focus  08:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep. Deleting this article may lead for nominating all other "List of supercentenarians who died in XXXX" articles. I suggest renaming the article.-- JL 09  q? c|undefined 03:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep an appropriate class of article, with the necessary change in title to include "verified"    DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Entirely appropriate and informative list. Even if not all entries are individually notable, the list itself is informative and the subject, in its broad scope, is notable -supercentenarians are regularly subject of academic studies, for example. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  14:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rename to "List of verified supercentenarians (etc)". Due to the rarity of supercentenarians and to the fact that many supercentenarians are the subject of articles, this one doesn't seem redundant. McMarcoP (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If we rename it, then we must rename all the other lists of supercentenarians who died in XXXX.Longevitydude (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep But agree with the rename to "verified". These lists aren't long: the present 2009 one is 70 people and won't go over 100. The number of people over the age of 110 is never more than a few hundred on the planet, and roughly a third of them die in any given year. So these lists are not in danger of becoming any more unwieldy than lists of hurricanes or royalty. S  B Harris 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, It definitely is worth keeping. It is priceless if you are interested in gerontologic research. Besides - there are lot of far stupider lists. Keeping this one, which contains verifiable data about real people certainly could not make any harm. I agree with the "verified" change proposed. User:Pudlajs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudlajs (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 October 2009 (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.