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


 * 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. Actually, both this and the men's list would probably be best served just by having a sortable table on List of the verified oldest people but in the absence of that, even though there's a lot of duplication, there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming need to delete this. Black Kite 10:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of the verified oldest women

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be another list that violates WP:NOT; specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". As I discuss on the talk page, this is essentially the same thing as List of the verified oldest people, except with the 10 males removed and 10 females added. I don't particularly agree with the List of the verified oldest men, but at least I see how it's a substantially different list and the intersection of "male" and "supercentenarian" is a non-trivial aspect. Since the majority of supercentenarians are women, however, I feel that this is a trivial intersection. Cheers, CP 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep,I do not agree with your nomination reason. WP:NOT does state Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but this is not an indiscriminate collection that that is random or haphazard.This is a well organized list. I don't see the logic behind keeping the list of the verified oldest men and deleting this article. Do I sense a bit of sexism?Smallman12q (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: 90% of supercentenarians are women and 92 out of the 100 women on this list are already on list of the verified oldest people. To the contrary, the list of the verified oldest men article only lists 10 men who are on list of the verified oldest people and are under-represented. A list of 10 men does not give a proper demographic view on the maximum age spans possible for men. Secondly, you should not throw accusations at other members. This is a place to discuss the article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Yup, I'm a sexist. I'm also a racist because we have a List of African American astronauts but I haven't created a List of Caucasian astronauts and a committed anti-Christian because I haven't put any effort into creating a List of Christian Christianity scholars even though we've got a List of Muslim Christianity scholars. Seriously though, it's trivial because the vast (90%) majority of oldest people are women, thus this list is nearly indistinguishable from List of the verified oldest people. Please remain civil in all discussions and avoid using personal attacks. Comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Cheers, CP 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant as an attack, rather as humor WP:Humor(something a number of wikipedians apparently lack) I simply believe that the list should be kept, that is all.Smallman12q (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I don't find being called a sexist funny, especially when there's no indication at all that it's a joke. Are you going to defend "humour [...] something a number of Wikipedians apparently lack" as an ironic joke? Doesn't matter. In any case, I have changed the argument slightly. Cheers, CP 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. Policy prohibits specific things, not a blanket of whatever you or any editor, personally, "feels" to be indiscriminate.  Please find an policy-based argument that actually supports your nomination. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The policy-based rationale may have been phrased poorly, but its spirit is there. I have rephrased the question in my response to Smallman12q, hopefully that will be enough. Cheers, CP 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smallman12q. EagleFan (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smallman12 and Uncle G's excellent article. Ikip (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears the main point for deletion is that the womens' list is indistinguishable from List of the verified oldest people. Fourteen women are listed here that are not on the oldest list and the ranking is entirely unique. That distinguishes it enough for me. TFBCT1 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually it's just 8. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment How can it possibly be "entirely unique" when 92 out of 100 names are listed in the same order on another page? 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DeleteOver 90% overlap with another article makes this article of negligible value. 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can not see how this overlaps "90 %" with any other articles; in any case, it is a notable, verifiable, and useful list per WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wasn't going to bother with such a list because of the overlap, but it can also be argued that the RANKINGS are different. Thus this list may be useful as one can figure that person X may be the 90th-oldest person and 83rd-oldest woman. It may also be useful because one can calculate the average age of the 100 oldest women and 100 oldest men, and see what the difference is. My only qualm is that the list should make it apparent, at the top, that this is NOT a list of oldest persons (as the mens' list should do as well). Often, journalists confuse "oldest man" or "oldest woman" with "oldest person." Just two days ago an article on Walter Breuning named him the "oldest person in America" before realizing that the "oldest man in America" was just the 10th-oldest person. Ryoung 122 10:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe list largely replicates the oldest persons lists. I used to see the need for female-only lists, but the demographic fact that 90 per cent of supercentenarians are women makes any women-only list largely redundant. Besides, when one looks at lists, the focus is usually on the top of the list, not the bottom. And the only unique information found here is at the very bottom. Also, as far as I am aware, while persons and males-only lists are compiled by gerontology groups, I am not aware that female-only lists are generally compiled. I may be wrong here. But this sounds like original research. Canada Jack (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't see how it can be considered original research when we use one source listing both women and men together and simply taking out those of the opposite sex. I also have not seen a male list compiled, and it's certainly not cited. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:48, 26 February 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.