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

 __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 keep and tag as . Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

People by year/Reports/Youngest


This page has similar problems to People by year/Reports/Oldest, and other problems besides. Once again, the code that generated the list failed to distinguish between century numbers and years, so that Marianna Zamoyska, who was once shown as born in 1631 and died in the 17th century, is suggested to have lived negative 1,614 years. (Her death date has since been updated.) Worse, the code couldn't process years "BC" correctly, so that substantially everyone from the ancient world whose dates are available is suggested to have lived a negative number of years, such as Julius Caesar, who lived from 100 BC to 44 BC, or negative 56 years according to this list. Once the page gets into positive numbers, the list becomes an odd melange mostly of royals who were either short-lived or were born recently, child actors (a number of whom are now redlinks), children who were victims of notorious murders or became known for severe medical problems, and young athletes. However, since the list was last generated in 2005, the list is not particularly current as to who are the youngest people listed in Wikipedia (it includes some 26-year-olds such as Kaley Cuoco and Luol Deng). I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy per nominator's exemplary summary. -- Klein zach  01:25, 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 05:30, 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) 22:08, 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)
 * I don’t think that this page was significant enough to match the description at historical, and it was for such things that Mothballed was created. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 15 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.