Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians (2nd nomination)

 __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. Besides echoing the sentiments of the page's first MfD closer, I note that there are citations for almost every entry on this list, and that potential BLP violations could (and should) be dealt with individually, without deleting the entire page. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians


This isn't the typical WikiProject list for potential articles. It's instead a list of BLPs that could become articles. If the editors wanted to start drafts of all these articles, that's one thing but this is not necessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as I said on a similar MfD, this is a project page. "A list of BLPs that could become articles" is merely PART of the use of the project page, although it is something I never even considered the list to be. Primarily, I considered the list what it mainly is: it is used to help keep the List of living supercentenarians and related articles up to date by having an organized list of information to seek out sources for that article and related articles when such persons reach supercentenarian status. By having an established list of those who are approaching that age, it makes it easier for project members to see which persons are reaching the age of 110, while looking to past sources and seeing if the source has an update to that person's age, being 110 or beyond. Seeking out the same news source for a person's 109th birthday announcement one year later is much easier when you have the link to that article, when searching to see if the 110th birthday was reached. Again, this is a project page, not an actual article. It has more uses than a list of potential articles. In fact, not all supercentenarians have articles. A previous nomination for deletion resulted in keep. —  AMK152  (t • c) 02:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a hypothetical, if I had a list of players currently signed to association football teams in fully professional leagues, that were simply waiting to play in a game to meet WP:NFOOTY, I don't think that'd be a problem. The same is true here. This is a list of topics that may need to be covered, by a specific WikiProject, hosted by that specific WikiProject. This seems like a totally legit use of WP: space. Also, you mention that if this was a list of draft articles, instead of just a list of articles to write, that it would be okay. I really don't see how that argument has any internal congruence. Achowat (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has little functionality as a means to an end (tracking possible future supercentenarians as claimed) and is instead being used as an end in itself (there being no apparent standard for inclusion, multiple BLP failures, and no attempt at weeding out out-of-date entries). If this does not exist off-wiki in some for m or other it would not seem difficult for any user(s) to maintain a copy. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 09:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can see the rationale for the list, but it clearly needs substantial trimming to comply with policy. For a start, per WP:BLP, all entries must cite a source, and unsourced entries need to be removed. And why does a list of 'future supercentenarians' need to include people who have already been included in our list of living supercentenarians article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd rather it be deleted and then organized as a proper series of redlinks with names and external links alone with zero details like any project's 'wanted articles' page. That would be the appropriate use of the page for the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, I don't see any problem in trimming it. We are talking about a project page here and not an actual Wikipedia article. —  AMK152  (t • c) 00:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Additionally, it is in table form like List of living supercentenarians because it sorts all needed information. Then, when the needed source is found, the content can be copied and pasted to the List of living supercentenarians article. —  AMK152  (t • c) 00:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is that not having reliable sources for information about living or recently-dead people is a BLP violation. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's still WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases which is really problematic and WikiProject World's Oldest People/Oldest (known) living people per country which is merely duplicative. I'm waiting to see if the discussion at WP:BLPN goes anywhere about the non-verified names. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the extensive WP violations for the pages within this project and the lack of co-operative editing from most of its members I wonder if the best solution might be to scrap the project entirely and start again from scratch with a closer eye kept on its activities? DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Being co-operative doesn't mean doing everything you say. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I sort of see why the list exists but there are a bunch of BLP violations and it isn't clear that the rest are reliably-sourced. A project like this should be for discussing how to generate this type of list, not for including the list itself. If being this age is notable then the list should be in mainspace, not in project space. Also note that the links at the bottom are to the lists on userpages which are all up for deletion. Ca2james (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This list might not be entirely reliable, but that's exactly why it's in the project namespace- it's a source of useful information for editors which, once verified, is added to Wikipedia mainspace. It would be absurd to destroy such a valuable resource on the grounds of notability- for it exists in order to make the main encyclopaedia more reliable!Chessrat (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed all unsourced individuals from the list. —  AMK152  (t • c) 02:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is better, although it is difficult to know whether the remaining entries are reliably-sourced. If they are reliably-sourced, why aren't they in an article? I also still have grave concerns about the page linking to pages in userspace. Ca2james (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They can be moved from user space to project space. —  AMK152  (t • c) 03:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, they are not in the actual article because the article is for supercentenarians. —  AMK152  (t • c) 03:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an excellent project page that I often refer to. As a project page people ought to be aware of its purpose and not just another article. Alan Davidson (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I refer to this page all of the time, it helps me a lot with my various projects. It would be a great shame indeed if we were to lose it. The list is kept up to date well and is referenced thoroughly. Yes improvements are possible, but I certainly don't see any major cause for deleting this page with such haste. --JKSD93 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed the links to userspace pages from this page since no one else has done it and they definitely do not belong on this page. Ca2james (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems like prime use of a project page. The project is about World's Oldest People, and this is a non-article page that keeps track of just that, but which are not yet ok for mainspace. Without this, I'm not sure of an easy way to keep track of people approaching that magic, if arbitrary, notability point. Offline perhaps, but no collaboration that way. Now, that having been said, BLP is in force everywhere, including here, so these do need to be properly sourced. They won't last long on the mainspace page without sources, so get them in now! Crow  Caw  22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * KeepUseful project page, particularly when looking for reports on 110th birthdays. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:00, 3 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.