Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/Oldest

 __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 marked as historical with Metropolitan90's rationale added as a explanation. BencherliteTalk 20:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

People by year/Reports/Oldest


This page is a list of the people with articles in Wikipedia who lived to the oldest purported age. However, it was not apparently not meant to cover only centenarians or supercentenarians, but also people whose dates of death are missing or whose birth or death years were entered incorrectly thus making them mistakenly appear to have been particularly ancient. This report was apparently generated from time to time in 2004 and 2005, but after 2005 it doesn't appear to have been generated again nor updated much by editors. During the interim, some of the individuals involved have had their birth and/or death dates corrected in their articles but are still listed here. Other individuals should never have been listed here in the first place, but the code that generated the list couldn't distinguish between someone being born in the "18th century" and being born in the year 18; thus, Ludwika Lubomirska, born in the 18th century and died in 1829, is implied to have lived 1,811 years. Whatever this list was meant to do, it didn't do it particularly well, and it hasn't done it in years. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy per nom's summary. Messy. -- Klein zach  01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical and perhaps add a note to the page about its pitfalls. There's no good reason to hide the list from non-admins; it was once relatively useful. Graham 87 05:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag as Mothballed. Of no great historical interest, but may be of interest to someone, and may be an idea worth resuming.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag as historical. I appreciate the extensive work done by the nominator, but I believe that we should keep this page as a warning to later editors not to follow the same process to achieve the same goal.  Perhaps the nominator should copy/paste the deletion rationale to the top of the page, just under historical, in order to strengthen the warning.  Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag historical this is pretty useless and certainly outdated but I don't see any reason to delete it. Hut 8.5 16:08, 9 December 2011 (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.