Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMK152/107

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete as a userpage and merge to projectspace; the merge has already been done at WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians. Since the content is no longer in userspace, I think allowing this merge and deleting the userspace title is an outcome to best represents' every commenter's favored outcome. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AMK152/107


In line with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bensonfood, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because first of all, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not relevant. It is not a personal web page or anything else listed under WP:NOTWEBHOST. Additionally, WP:FAKEARTICLE is not relevant. I would be in favor of bringing it over to a project page, but there was a discussion stating that it was not favorable, so I put it on my user page. It is not a fake article, it is not intended to look like an article, nor is it a draft. To say what the page really is, is basically, a sandbox. It is a place to store information in preparation for the List of living supercentenarians article and for those involved in the project to seek out sources for such individuals, so as to keep List of living supercentenarians article up to date more easily. It is not hurting anyone at all, but rather, it is helping WikiProject World's Oldest People, so I don't understand the problem nir the rationale. —  AMK152  (t • c) 02:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Webhost doesn't mean it's a personal page, it means using Wikipedia to host content. Second, one of the biggest problems I see if that all the people doing this are hindered from actually learning to work and collaborate with others: it becomes a "I disagree with you, I'm copying this into my own page and you can't change it" routine. There's no other reason why there would be so many different versions. If there was a single page and people were actually working to build consensuses and create the articles based on what seems like the most reasonable neutral way to do it, fine, I'd leave you all alone but instead we're getting nothing but "I want my article written my way and no one should stop me." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just it. This is a page for people to work together. It's not "my way" it's for everyone to contribute to. It is a single page. If there is another page like it where other people are working together, please let me know and we can collaborate —  AMK152  (t • c) 01:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why isn't everyone working at the WikiProject one? Isn't that the point of creating the project, to centralize discussion? Why are there so many people who create their own userpage lists? This is precisely why I'm asking for that one to be deleted: it seems like people here are just looking to make lists for themselves. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure about why there is a misunderstanding, but if the Wikiproject page is "A" and this user page is "B," A and B are not overlapping; B is a continuation of A. It's all different information. I would not be opposed to merging the two pages. —  AMK152  (t • c) 14:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. If being this old is notable enough for an article then lists like this go in articlespace/mainspace, not userspace. Ca2james (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, such an article exisits: List of living supercentenarians. This subpage is used to help keep that article up to date by making it easier to find information when it comes time for the person to be included in the article articlespace. It's not its own entity. It's a project page that supports the main article for reasons I have already given. —  AMK152  (t • c) 01:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the information must be merged into the article or deleted; this type of project page is not an appropriate or allowed use of user pages. Ca2james (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The people in this list are not yet supercentenarians. This subpage isn't meant to be an article. It's meant to be a placeholder for content when the right time comes and the right sources are available. I do not yet see how this fails WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. —  AMK152  (t • c) 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, the information must be kept off-wiki. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, it isn't appropriate for project space or user space. Ca2james (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A review of policies again, according to WP:UPYES, this type of subpage is allowed, in particular, what is in bold: "Drafts being written in your own user space because the target page itself is protected, and notes and working material for articles (Some content may not be kept indefinitely)." - that is what it is: "working material." And the content is not kept indefinitely. —  AMK152  (t • c) 03:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But again why this subpage and not WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians? What is it so difficult to have a single centralized place to work? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You said above "I would be in favor of bringing it over to a project page, but there was a discussion stating that it was not favorable." Why was it deemed not favorable and can you point to that discussion? – JBarta (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked back, and I don't believe there was a discussion, or at least I cannot find it. It was back in 2010, when this user subpage was created, I moved the content for those born in 1902 and 1903 to my userpage. See history link here. NickOrnstein removed a large chunk of the list. There appears not to be a discussion, or that I can find, so I must have moved the information to preserve it as many people have since retained the list. Eventually, it evolved into the "107" list and the Wikiproject page WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians evolved into 108+. We just never put the two back together, but I wouldn't be opposed to that, it might make it easier as well. —  AMK152  (t • c) 03:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the point of all this? This is a page of people who were born in 1907 (or very late 1906) based (in part, some have nothing) on articles that just state "someone was 107 years old" to me. That's still two years until they become a supercentenarian from today, assuming they live then. By definition, any name on this list will be stagnant for at least two years. That seems entirely unnecessary. Same with 108 and one year. Are any of these considered notable centenarians and added to those articles? If the goal is truly to have supercentenarians, why would you even need lists of people who won't be there for one to two years? Is it really that critical to be on the lookout for some secret hidden 110 year old? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the reason for this page. It serves the same purpose as this project page: WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, to help project members keep the supercentenarian list up to date by having quick access to data so that when a person reaches supercentenarian status, the news articles/sources in which they were mentioned can be sought out for updated information. Like I said, I would not be oppose to putting this in the project space or mergining it with the "Future supercentenarians" project page. —  AMK152  (t • c) 02:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Similar age related lists also in userspace that may copy/overlap existing articles or other lists deleted/pending deletion:
 * User:AMK152/OldestPeople
 * User:AMK152/Future supercentenarians
 * User:AMK152/OPcountry

– JBarta (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by the way, this is a continuation of WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, so we also have the option of merging the two. —  AMK152  (t • c) 03:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians (assuming it survives MfD). This list looks to me to serve the same function as that, only that list stops at 108 and this is all 107's, so a merge would be easy. I'm not seeing the case for FAKEARTICLE or NOTWEBHOST, since this is a list maintained by a wikiproject member for use on that project, with non-repeated content from that project, which is in userspace for some reason. It does not purport to be an article, or a personal blog or similar WEBHOST stuff. The only reason I can see for it being where it is, is that at some point someone on the wikiproject determined that 107's did not belong on their pending list. Yes this information (and the other page as well) will stagnate some, but by definition never more than a year: either a 107 reaches 108 and moves sections, or they... well... get removed altogether. To me, a perfect use of wikiproject space. Crow  Caw  22:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Merging would be a waste of time. It would not only make a bloated page (currently 186kb) even more bloated but it wouldn't be long before someone started a 106 years olds page (and then 105, 104, etc, etc) and we'll end up wasting more time doing this all over again. Such pages may exist off-wiki already in which case there is no reason that this page shouldn't as well. If they don't exist where does the material come from? If people just trawl the internet for it why can't they just search for 108 year olds? Or 109 year olds? Or maybe just 110 year olds? DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 10:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced that merging this page to the project page would be useful since the project page is so bloated. Keeping a list of people who might become supercentenarians in the next two years (which is what the current project page does) makes some sense but increasing the length of time to keep track of people to three years is stretching the page's utility and and suitability for wikipedia. This is exactly the type of page that should be kept off-wiki. I think this page should be deleted but if it isn't, then merging is the next best option as it definitely does not belong in userspace. Ca2james (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note An IP (one of those that only edits longevity related articles) has copied the content of this page into the Future supercentenarians project page. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per precedent set by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bensonfood. Redundant to the regular articles on supercentenarians. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 26 January 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.