Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unverified longevity claims


 * 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 redirect to Longevity claims. There is no doubt that there is consensus that this article should not exist on Wikipedia, and if it is recreated it can probably be reverted to redirect/deleted per G4. The only reason I haven't closed this as delete is because there are a number of people below who advocate for selective merging. Hence, I've left the history behind the redirect so that it can be merged with editorial discretion. (Note: If anyone thinks this should be redirected to the 130+ article instead of 'Longevity claims', please feel free to alter accordingly.) Daniel (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Unverified longevity claims
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic is already is covered by the page Longevity claims (possibly merge the two articles?) Gotha &#x262d; Talk 20:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

See Articles for deletion/Incomplete longevity claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Gotha &#x262d; Talk 11:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge Longevity claims and List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 (all of course unverified) to this article, which has the clearest title. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. See my reasoning from Articles for deletion/Incomplete longevity claims. As a stand-alone topic, what this split is based upon (when it was called "incomplete" claims) is either parroting the GRG's verified/unverified claims (while allowing their unverified claims to persist), or pure WP:OR with about what constitutes verified/not verified/complete/incomplete claims. This is purely crystal balling that these claims could or will have reliable sources. This was merged before and split under the basis that these are the claims based on non-reliable sources (that certain people still want to list here under as their cruft-de-jur). For example, this for James Olofintuyi is not a reliable source and rather than actually deleting and removing it, it's been moved to this page if/until the GRG has verified it. At best, the place for these speculative nonsense claims is the project's (complete or the incomplete cases list) rather than as an separate article from the actual "verified" claims but frankly we shouldn't be webhosting a storehouse of all nonsense claims so that people who are interested in this cruft can keep track of it using our resources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Purely on the basis that anything that is unverified, thereby failing WP:V, has no place in Wikipedia. Fanfluff articles such as this are not encyclopedic and are a discredit to Wikipedia as a serious website. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 02:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge Longevity claims and List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 with this article. Hardly "fanfluff" when such cases are discussed by scientific journals like this. Moreover, they are unverified in the sense of being their claimed ages, whether they made the claim can be easily verified, thereby not failing WP:V.
 * Nobody is disputing whether or not people who are old is a topic. The point is, nobody wants a list of "here is everyone who has claimed to be old" without any care about whether or not they're right. We have a list of NBA players, not a list of everyone who has claimed to be an NBA player. One is useful information, the other is nonsense no one cares about. That is why we go to reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ricky81682 and also because it appears to be a re-creation of List of unverified longevity claims, which was deleted after discussion in 2011. The information appears to have been deleted and re-added from Longevity Claims before the 2011 deletion. The information was subsequently split again from Longevity claims. Ca2james (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete article as written has an infinite scope, has ridiculous statements in it (like a section called "Scientific status" - the scientific method is not involved in verifying people's ages - that is something the historical method is used for - this is history, not science, per se). Just GNG articlecruft. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as having deep, deep Verifiability issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 19 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.