Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the verified oldest people


 * 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 snow keep, clearly not going to happen (non-admin close). shoy (reactions) 14:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

List of the verified oldest people

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Verified" in this case means "verified by the Gerontological Research Group". This article's content is a duplicate of that at Oldest people and Oldest living people, where names may be sourced to other reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am adding List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women to this AfD because their content is duplicated in List of the verified oldest people which in turn duplicates content in the articles listed above. Ca2james (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful list. The Oldest living people has the disadvantage that you have to do a lot of work when someone dies. Georgia guy (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Read the opening line in this article: "This is a list of the world's verified oldest people, verified to the standards of an international body widely recognized for specific expertise in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records." ---> The verifying body does NOT have to be the GRG. It just so happens that, as of the present moment, there isn't another organisation which is as widely recognised (although others do exist). But the idea that - because this article is referenced to just that source - it should be deleted is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with referencing an authoritative body, we see this elsewhere on Wikipedia. An article like this is something likely to be of great interest to many people so should definitely remain, but it should only be a list of people whose ages are proven to be true, in line with WP:VALID - otherwise, we could have biblical claims listed here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep You say the article is a duplicate of the Oldest people page, well it isn't, as the List of the verified oldest people page shows the 100 verified oldest people ever, as opposed to the 10 oldest verified people ever on the Oldest people page, so claiming that the content is a duplicate is completely false. Another reason for keeping this article is that it shows the 100 VERIFIED oldest people ever, if this list didn't exist, then unvalidated and potentially false claims could be included as part of the 100 oldest people ever. The content of the article is also in no way a duplicate of the Oldest living people page, as this page shows the 100 oldest people ever, as opposed to the oldest living people, there's a key difference there. -- Bodgey5 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep These 3 pages and the Oldest people page have good information about the oldest people. The pages have mostly different information. Rpvt (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not duplicate the other articles, as they only show the oldest 10 living people, omitting a large number of notable people from the top 100.. Nom's argument that "verified" means "verified by the Gerontological Research Group" is irrelevant, as one can add other sources if desired; it just happens to be the case that the Gerontological Research Group is one of the most reliable sources in existence. Nominator's argument seems very weak; in fact this deserves a borderline WP:SNOW keep IMO. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 04:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oldest people provides an overview of the various lists that does not need to go into depth. The specific lists nominated are not merely duplicates as the user above has argued, and the List of the verified oldest men does not really duplicate much from the List of the verified oldest people anyway. In addition, I do not understand the argument about "verified" meaning "verified by the Gerontology Research Group"; the GRG is a reliable source, and "verified" does not preclude the inclusion of other reliable sources as well, so I do not see the problem here. Yiosie  2356 05:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is a useful list for people who are interested in the subject. It is not a copy of the "Oldest People"-page since it lists the 100 (and not ten) oldest VERIFIED people ever. This list is something most people enjoy because it shows how long people can actually live. 930310 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - highly encyclopedic list —Мандичка YO 😜 07:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very useful, very often used, exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia is here for in my view. The argument that it is not acceptable due to the fact there is only one predominant source is a poor one. The GRG just happens to be the main source for these lists due to the fact it is the most trustworthy and the most reliable, the only source which actually fact checks and verifies the cases listed. So it makes sense that most reliable = most often used, but the nominator's argument suggests that most often used = not reliable? Completely illogical. JKSD93 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's looking a lot like Christmas ...: For pity's sake, snippily suggesting that the article is suspect because the GRG is the source is like saying an article about soccer "verified" by FIFA is suspect. The GRG is the outfit generally held to be the worldwide authority in such matters.  Nha Trang  Allons! 11:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I think it is important to teach the general public about the difference between longevity myths, longevity claims/claimants, and the VERIFIED oldest people, I would like to see this article be kept as it is. Showing that the world's oldest verified people ever were between the ages of 122 and 114, with the majority having died at 114 or 115, will hopefully teach the public that someone claiming to be 130 might not actually be the age (s)he is claiming to be. I do not see a problem in the fact that the GRG has verified the majority of the people on this list; it is not the fault of the GRG that other gerontology organisations such as the GWR or the IDL have not verified more living people - mind you, the GWR has ALSO, independently, verified all people attaining the world's oldest person status (see their website). Fiskje88 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Im sorry, but there is no way this is going to be deleted with the current consensus, a merger may be in order for some of the lists but this isn't the place for it. A trout may also be in order. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per above. These articles contain useful information, and not duplicate of the other pages listed. A small overlap, but not duplicate. —  AMK152  (t • c) 14:07, 17 August 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.