Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2012


 * 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. As a copyright violation of, which the article claims to be an exact copy of. As Pburka convincingly argues, these data are not uncopyrightable facts because (unlike, say, the telephone book) they are the product of research, i.e., a creative process. (Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer, but not specialized in US copyright law.)

Even if the copyright violation would not mandate deletion, there would be a consensus for deletion based on an assessment of the weight of the arguments in the light of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. While the opinions are, numerically, divided, most of the "keep" opinions merely assert that this is a well-sourced list (which one can be sceptical about, given that http://www.grg.org looks rather self-published, as Pburka also noted) - but almost all of them did not address the other arguments for deletion based on Wikipedia's list inclusion guidelines.  Sandstein  17:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians who died in 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Uniqueness: These "List of supercentenarians who died in YEAR" are the only lists of people who died in a span of time for any topic on Wikipedia. We don't have List of actors who died in 2012, List of tall people who died in 2012 or even List of murder victims in 2012.

Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a Valid Topic: There are no independent reliable sources that deal with the topic of super old people who died in a given year. Instead, these annual lists are extracts from lists on the super old people hobbyist site GRG for which Wikipedia should not be a WP:WEBHOST. Further, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." It also violates WP:LISTPEOPLE "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. and The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."
 * Duplicates existing article: this topic duplicates Lists of deaths by year presenting an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It doesn't appear to violate the requirement for LISTS. The bigger list of people who died in that year is only for blue linked people that have articles and is just a navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at Category:2012 deaths, excluding the two categories for just redirects of victim names to two particular incidents, the only articles separate from the main 2012 deaths is List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2012 (with a corresponding category) and List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012 (which are really birth or death categories). I don't think supercentenarians can be put into the same category as law enforcement shootings or US members of Congress and the blue-linked ones can be copied over to the people who died in 2012. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A defined list on a notable topic with clear inclusion criteria, which is part of a bigger series. Also compare with List of veterans of World War I who died in 2008, for example, which is another similar stand alone list.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep With reference to the nomination, I don't agree with the argument of uniqueness: all year-based lists of people should be based on the most year for which they were most notable; in most cases that would be the year of birth or the year of an achievement; but in the case of supercentenarians, it is the year of death which is most notable because it is their age at the time of death which is notable, and therefore the death date is the most sensible basis for categorisation – that this happens to be unique to supercentenarians is not a just cause to delete the articles. With regard to the validity of the topic and WP:LISTPEOPLE, I make the following observation – not all supercentenarians have their own biographical pages, but there are many who do and for whom their supercentenarianism is their only point of notability; therefore I must conclude that supercentenarianism is sufficient basis to meet WP:N, and that this is a valid basis for a stand-alone list. The referencing isn't great, but that can be improved. Aspirex (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a policy-based rationale. Notability, on wikipedia, means significant coverage of the topic in multiple, independent reliable sources. There's nothing about that in the !vote above. It should be discounted accordingly. This list contravenes WP:NLIST. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I'm making a justifiable WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS extrapolation – i.e arguing that because there are existing supercentenarians who have bios despite being WP:BLP1E cases, then all supercentenarians could justifiably have bios if someone had the motivation to write them; I'm pre-supposing that the references exist, and I don't think that's an unfair assumption. As is alluded to many times in this AfD above and below, it is questionable whether bios for BLP1E supercentenarians should exist at all; but as a step-off from that, there would be cases to delete probably half of the articles in the Longevity template – so when I see an AfD like this which has the potential to be a test case which could branch so widely into an established project, I believe it would be sensible for us to step back and say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for now, and then tackle the whole issue holistically. (For example, the nominator really should have bundled all the other List of supercentenarians who died in xxxx pages into this AfD. Clearly they must all share the same problems, and the editors in this AfD need to understand that they're making a decision for twenty pages instead of just one). For the record, if we do tackle the longevity articles issue more holistically, I'm likely to lean towards deletion of a lot of the articles. Aspirex (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But is the age of 110 really the barometer for making them notable? Lists of centenarians only cares for notable cetenarians, namely those people who are famous for something other than their age alone. Does it make sense that Helen Reichert be on List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers) because of her activities but if she had lived two more months, she would then automatically notable no matter what she did or did not do? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The continued existence of Bio pages for people'whose only notability is reaching age 110 - a full twelve years younger then the oldest person in recorded recent history, is a related problem. Current practice, in absolute contravention of WP:NLIST is to include on these lists every person GRG says past 110 years old even if not a single other RS about them can be found. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We have the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and we also have the essay WP:OUTCOMES and they contradict, because they are just essays. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think this comes down to a question about whether supercentenarians are notable. If they are, by sheer dint of longevity, then a list of them is appropriate, and listing them by year of death seems logical. I think longevity is a case of WP:BLP1E, and that longevity does not confer notability, but I know others disagree. Pburka (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that true? For example, NFL quarterbacks are notable, various lists about NFL quarterbacks are appropriate but would the next leap be that all lists about NFL quarterback be notable? Would lists of NFL quarterbacks who have passed for 400 or more yards in a game by year be appropriate then? In the same vein, supercentenarians are notable generally only if they are known as the world's oldest people, not by and of themselves. No one cares about every single person who dies at age 110, just generally the oldest person who dies then. As such, is a list of everyone who died at age 110 or above really appropriate? Wouldn't it be better to go to the general deaths in 2012 page and have the world's oldest person who died at those times be included there, not on a separate list of all people above age 110 who died that year? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think all lists about supercentenarians would be notable, but death is closely tied to the topic of longevity. The two most important facts about a supercentarian are their birth date and death date, and I suspect that most supercentarians are only written about when they die. (But, as I said, I don't think supercentarians are inherently notable.) Pburka (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But year of death? A lot of these supercentearians were never really written about as, barring a few, most were just elderly individuals, not the most elderly which would warrant some discussion. The page is just citing one source because that source (and only that source) is concerned with tagging all supercentenarians. There is no other evidence of notability for this list other than the one source cited here. Wouldn't year of birth be similarly appropriate under that logic? Both of those facts are really all that we have that matters about these people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're arguing that the individuals in the list aren't notable. That's a viewpoint I agree with, and I would support deleting this list along with all of the individual articles (except for those who are independently notable). However, if supercentarians are notable simply for being long lived, then I believe that listing them by year of death (and year of birth) is appropriate. Pburka (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment the idea that the existence of other annual or date range articles for this topic does not help. This is test case for deletion, which I choose because it was a longer list then the older ones, yet 3 years back so it should reasonably catch all the known deaths. If someone passes GNG they should have an article. If they have an article and died in 2012 they should go on the Deaths in 2012. If they don't pass GNG or the appropriate subguideline they don't get an article and WP:LISTPEOPLE applies. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Well-sourced material by several editors in hard work over lots of years. We have such lists to other years, so it does not make sense to delete this one. In case of deletion many information will be lost, because they are not shown in other lists on wikipedia, this is the reason we have this list. Arguments of merging or duplication are without sense and wrong, just look at the content of the mentioned lists and compare this with the content of this list. Similar name does not mean similar content.--37.4.93.114 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This was not a personal attack, Alansohn is disturbing the discussion. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep a clearly defined list and properly sourced list that meets all of the criteria of Stand-alone lists. The list also provides a framework for the addition of other articles of individuals as additional material becomes available. This is the very definition of the purpose of a standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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  17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and block Legacypac! He is a man on a mission out of control.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another ILIKEIT and I hate the nominator vote, to be considered for what it is. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have a suggestion: First create a list on wikipedia with all verified dead supercentenarians in a sortable table, sortable to gender, to year of death, to place of death, and then all the other lists could be merged or deleted. But not the other way round, because in this way there is danger of losing information in case of being not installed of the big table. So I wait for the big table. It's your turn, Legacypac, you were the one who wished changes.--Kachelus (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really think all that information is relevant here? Wikipedia isn't a directory of everyone who died after hitting age 110. If that's your requirement before even considering deleting one of these pages, that's not particularly productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Ricky81682, that is also a reason why we have lists of the deaths of supercentenarians, all sourced, over the years. Believe it or not, there are many people who look at this so you can suppose there is a relevance. Only deleting anything by declaring the content would not be productive is not the way Wikipedia works I think. Also think about that these lists were generated by many users in lots of months, even years. Is it your wish to destroy their work?--Kachelus (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Inquiry Is this list up for deletion because the information on this list is replicated somewhere else on Wikipedia or is it up for deletion because the people listed here are not notable in the eyes of the nominator? 66.168.191.92 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing notable, as that word is defined on Wikipedia, about the particular year a group of especially old people die. The nominator's rationale, based on the facts that: Wikipedia is not a web host for the GRG Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is a list of trivia/fancruft are sensible and policy-based. The arguments opposing deletion, not so much. David in DC (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It is well-sourced and fulfills the criteria for wikipedia stand-alone list. There is no obvious reason for deletion, especially only for deletion of the list 2012.--37.4.93.37 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (very new acct)
 * Keep I agree this is well sourced and should be kept especially since this is the only 1 up for deletion and yet the others aren't? Kind of stupid. Bbonds775 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The list is almost entirely sourced to a hobbyist website. Regarding the other lists, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pburka (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerontology Research Group is not a hobbyist organization. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Having carefully read our page on the organization and their own website, I must disagree with you. It's a group of amateurs who collect statistics about long lived people. Pburka (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And who have, for many years, tried to bootstrap their standing by proliferating their info onto wikipedia. Please review the original Arbcom longevity case before closing this AfD. Only by understanding just why these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions can the context become clear. GRG has used our project as a web-hosting service for far too oo long. David in DC (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's no evidence that people who survive 110 years are inherently notable. They're often (but not consistently) subject to a brief burst of fame on their death, but this falls under WP:BLP1E. If these subjects were inherently notable, this list would be a reasonable way to organize the articles, but they're not, so this list and most of the linked biographies should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Several policies apply. 1. "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Fails criterion. 2. This article is a replica of the ONE notable source, and probably is a WP:COPYVIO. That site states, "These tables are Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 by GRG Interactive." Seems kind of compelling. 3. WP:NOTMIRROR/WP:WEBHOST apply. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Every webpage is automatically given copyright under the DMCA, however Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. determined that you cannot copyright facts, only original commentary. The chart would have to say something like "awesome person" or "was great in bed" or some other commentary. Lists like "best of" or "best ever" are subjective commentary. Oldest and youngest are mathematically objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Except these aren't facts. For many of the people, determining their birth date (and place) requires scouring many, often contradictory, sources, and determining what date is the most likely. See, for example, Delma Kollar. The bar for copyright is quite low, and that element of judgement is likely sufficient to grant copyright protection. Pburka (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, no ... flipping a coin to decide which of two competing dates go into a chart is not worthy of a copyright, anymore than choosing between two telephone numbers in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the list is not copyright because it's an arbitrary "flip of the coin" non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, then it should not be here. We would not import the telephone directory here, right? That's what Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. looked at. If these various lists on the site we are mirroring are copyright (which they claim but you demur), they should not have been imported here improperly, (you disagree). If on the other hand, we ourselves here have no ability to assess the factual accuracy of the table, this is disturbing as representing a blanket acceptance of the criteria and accuracy of application of the site's processes. The data here is exactly the same here because our process is merely mirroring that individual page. That is where your argument further falls apart: the site (on its other pages) discusses the implications of the data, including visiting on issues including definitional and seiving bias drift. The site appears to have used judgment criteria for its internal verification of the names it put on the list. When you read Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., that judgment effort and fact checking process (selection by rule based in-house verification, unlike the "mere facts of a telephone directory list") may be copyrightable. The bigger problem though is explaining why this cross-categorization is encyclopedic knowledge that ranks higher than importing the telephone directory. Or the telephone directory of 1944 Manhattan for that matter. Yes, the telephone directory is useful within its own parameters, but no, we are not porting it over here as useful within the parameters of an encyclopedia. In what way is the intersection of 2012 and date of death of supercentenarians "a culturally significant phenomenon"? FeatherPluma (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * TLDR, sorry ... I zoned out after a few sentences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * TL, DR. That's a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, right? David in DC (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The page we are discussing here, List of supercentenarians who died in 2012, starts by asserting that this page is the exact copy of http://www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2012.HTM. This assertion is surprising by itself, but doesn't catch all of the truth. The wp page has been obtained by a robotic, identical copy of everything of the original grg page... except from the deletion of the columns source, application,  add date and picture.   What is the copyright status of the remaining material, robotically copied into Wikipedia? Do we have the agreement of the original writers (Martin Miet/Luc Le Lay,		Robert Young/Filipe Prista Lucas,	Paolo Scarabaggio, Steve Coles and the about 80 other writers named in the source column of the original page)? Moreover, what is the use of this document once amputed from its most valuable part (the picture is, more than often, backed by a biographic sketch ) ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:43, 2 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.

This discussion have been submitted to a Deletion Review, see Deletion review/Log/2016 January 2, closed as deletion endorsed at 03:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC). FYI, Pldx1 (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC).