Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians (3rd 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  Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians


It's been almost a year and I think it's time to reevaluate this page's usefulness once again. As noted before, both pages here are project pages that actually does nothing for the project nor for Wikipedia at all. Regardless of the claims that this material is useful for keeping track of the world's oldest people, none of the sources here have been used as a reference in a single article. See List of oldest living people for example which basically just cites the GRG and nothing else. Besides, we shouldn't be using individual tables of who we think is the oldest living person in the world rather than reporting what reliable sources say are the oldest living people (WP:TRUTH and WP:OR). Further, many of the names here aren't included in any lists anywhere making these nothing more than WP:FAKEARTICLE-type preferred versions of disputed content (namely, whether or not these claims are real or can be dumped into all the all-encompassing longevity claims tables is a distinction I can't figure out). If, for example, reliable sources state that "Rujjam" is in fact alive and 112 and 290 days old, he should be included on the table. If not, he shouldn't be included anywhere. There shouldn't be a (a) a table or tables; (b) a longevity claims article; (c) this table; and (d) finally no inclusion at all. There's no basis for determining all those here. The massive editing here has zero relationship to the actual encyclopedia. Finally, even though the main longevity tables require a minimum of age 110 to avoid being complete ridiculous, these tables attempt to keep track of speculation about people who are aged 108 and above, meaning that the people at the bottom of these lists are going to be listed here for three years before there is even a possibility of their inclusion (which again, seeing as how few articles actually use a single source from here, makes that remote). The only purpose of this page I speculate is some off-wiki usage for a particular group of individuals so that they can use these pages as a WP:WEBHOST for all their information. If they are worried about losing a ton of information they can take it all to Gerontology wikia which is the proper place for this level of detail about this subject. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as has been said in earlier discussions, this is not a fake article. This is a page to keep track of information to better keep the main list up to date. —  AMK152  (t • c) 22:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is never used in any manner to keep the main list up to date. It has been eleven months since the last discussion. Can you point me to a single source from here been used anywhere else? Has any name been transferred in close to a year? The only thing this is is another table, one that is for some reason different than the main list and different than longevity claims or the other pages. So what use is it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep because this list helps seek information a lot of those people who has reached to 107-110 year old and add them on the list after confirmed 107th birthday and remove them after the following person has passed away or reached to 110 year old. But that another list of Incomplete cases most of them are probably limbo or passed away and that page can be delete. That's my opinion. 85.134.25.113 (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — 85.134.25.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But Wikipedia's main articles don't include anyone from age 107-110. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a most useful resource for those interested in the field, and has proved to be most valuable. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But is this useful to this project? The problem has been a decade of people "interested in the field" using Wikipedia for their purposes not Wikipedia's. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Alan Davidson (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You care to explain how? Again, can you point to a single reference from this page that was used anywhere in an article for the encyclopedia (namely, article space)? A single name? A single source? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a web host for "researchers" accumulating data on people who might have sources supporting notability as articles/list entries years from now (but almost none of whom will, for obvious reasons). EEng (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the only way for researchers to keep track of this information here. The project has lasted a decade with all this information, it can't be lost now. — 166.171.121.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your comment is the best proof yet that Wikipedia is being used as a hosting service for "researchers", instead of for building the encyclopedia. EEng (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, This page is not using Wikipedia as a hosting service. It helps a lot of people. 62.80.158.106 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 62.80.158.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Looks alot like a fake article with the sole purpose of speculating who's next though wikipedia in not a WP:Crystalball. There are other locations to web host this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I am usually willing to allow for a lot of leeway when it comes to how the guidelines for user/project spaces are utilized, here I see nothing but an unabashed use of Wikipedia as a webhost here. Any benefit to the project seems to be incidental. Canadian   Paul  23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as this seems like a list of people about to die. It is pure Crystal ball to suggest that a 107 year old person could become a 110 year old person. In fact it is extremely unlikely. Also why the arbitrary cut off - every living person should be on this list. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the 107 year old were merged here following Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMK152/107. It used to be 108 and thus only a year and change before we'd have a discussion on including them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * so the info was deemed not worthy of the encyclopedia so someone moved it here? Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only been a year, it takes time to get rid of these things. This project has caused problems for over a decade now so some people are playing the long game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only been a year, yes, and so attempts to delete should not be considered annually without some new reason not raised previously. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been a year since the last deletion and the same problems exist, namely that for all intents and purposes this does absolutely zero for the people who read or use the encyclopedia. The only purpose is for some people who have some off-wiki interest in the topic to work here and abuse Wikipedia's resource as a WP:WEBHOST. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is exactly the kind of page that WikiProjects create to identify future potential articles. I look forward to the future creation of articles from the candidates identified on this list. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point to one? Do you expect one of the "Anonymous 108 years old in a prefecture in Japan" to suddenly become an article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete A blatant example of NOTWEBHOST. This page has been used almost exclusively by SPAs many of whom have never made a contribution to any article in mainspace. No substantial difference between this and any number of userpages deleted for the same reason. No valid reason given by any user as to why this should be a wiki article rather than elsewhere, and there are off-wiki resources are available for this sort of fancruft. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 09:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See for just such an SPA. EEng (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)