Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest living men


 * 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. The consensus is to delete - however if a suitable WikiProject wants to contact me on my talk page, I will restore and move to a subpage for the project. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

List of the oldest living men
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am nominating this article for deletion due to having a list of the oldest living men but not oldest living women - lack of consistency. The 108 and 109 year olds go to WikiProject:Future supercentenarians. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Not added to main daily AFD page until 03:42, 22 October 2010.
 * Delete: While Nick and I have other disagreements, this is an eminently sound nomination. The first three sections are redundant with List of living supercentenarians and the remaining section is full of 108- and 109-year-olds when there is no consensus that line-item notability for old men starts at 108 (although tracking them off-mainspace seems acceptable, at first glance). There is also significant pro-deletion commentary at talk, and DerbyCountyinNZ 10:01, 30 June 2010, points out there the arbitrariness of "108" as a determinant age. JJB 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The List of living supercentenarians is short enough that separate lists for men and women are unnecessary. Tracking 108+ year olds off-mainspace may make sense, as some of those people will turn 110 and therefore become eligible for inclusion on the List of living supercentenarians Circumspect (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is redundant with the list of living supercentenarians, and also imbalance by the lack of an article about the oldest living women. J I P  &#124; Talk 08:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment When did "Other stuff doesn't exist" become a basis for deletion of an article? Rather than being the "political correctness gender-balance police," judge this article on its own merits. There are Wikipedians who are somehow able to create an article in a minute or two, so the lack of the other article should be readily correctable if such an article satisfies the relevant guidelines for notability. Edison (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep.

Let's be honest, if the GRG list has 79 persons (76 women and 3 men), then it's reasonable to expect a separate article on men, due to the fact that they are much rarer. A list of "oldest women" would be too redundant. Ryoung 122 06:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: If it's "reasonable", ad Jimboneam, it should be easy to name proponents of the idea that it's reasonable. But at least Ryoung122 recognizes redundancy does have its limits. JJB 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge the information to a wiki project, this information would be better off as a wiki project than as a stand alone article, just send us a link so we would know where to find it, its notable enough to be somewhere, but not on its own stand alone wikipedia article. Longevitydude (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As there are so few men on the list of living supercentenarians, I do not see a problem with having men on a stand-alone article. The oldest women are already represented on their other article. There are 56 men listed. The list of living supercentenarians already lists 156 women (75 verified, 32 pending, 49 unverified). Do the maths: there's no justification for a separate article on women, and there's no justification for deleting an article based on the absence of another article. Previous issues with the article (for example, lack of citations and rankings for unverified people were addressed). SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Theres already an article about the oldest men ever, the oldest women ever, and one for the oldest people ever, I don't fight for the deletion of articles, I just give my opinion and let other take it for what its worth, but if I want an article kept, I'll fight for it. Longevitydude (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

HOWEVER, I can think of a few good reasons to keep it, they all have a source, and the article seems to have no errors, and besides, there are more validated living supercentenarians than there are living men aged 108+. Longevitydude (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you going to name third-party reliable proponents of the idea of listing the oldest living men separately from oldest people? JJB 18:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care where the information is as long as its somewhere, wether its a stand alone article or a project, I dont care one way or another as long as its somewhere. Longevitydude (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful page. jc iindyysgvxc  (my contributions) 22:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For those who think the article is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2010 (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.