Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians

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

The result was keep. Even though there are indications of canvassing, as seen in the unusual participation of many users with few edits and a "keep" opinion, there's no way to find a consensus to delete here.  Sandstein  09:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian supercentenarians

List of Australian supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list covers most of the people on List of supercentenarians from Oceania where the country of everyone is already noted. It is the only county specific breakout of the Oceania group, a list that is not so long it requires breaking out. Delete, leaving the title as a redirect to the Oceania article. This will reduce the maintenance required and the chances of error or variation. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 01:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of supercentenarians from Oceania should be deleted, not this one. Australia is a country so deserves it's own article. Oceania is not a country so should be deleted as they do not warrant a separate entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Except Australia and Oceania aren't the same thing, so this argument doesn't really work. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
according to the old people trackers Aussieland is in Oceania. There are no country specific articles for any other place in the region, so either exclude Aussieland from Oceania or merge. As it is old people in Aust go on the country list, the region list, and the world list and the three lists don't match up, so evidently there are errors. However someone lucky enough to live in New Zealand only goes on two lists - world and Oceania. Someone got a better idea that will reduce maintenance and move toward greater accuracy - please share. 23:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. There's no reason we can't have two lists (plus List of New Zealand supercentenarians, if one were so inclined). Keeping them in sync and accurate is not a deletion issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the exact title you mentioned was already deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_New_Zealand_supercentenarians as redundant to other lists. Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This remains a valuable encyclopedic resource; and those who need or desire specific divisions can rely appropriately on Wikipedia. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oceania list. All these scattered, overlapping slices and dices by country, region, etc. have no advantage over a small set of larger lists (pseudo-continental), which are easily sorted and searched on e.g. country. And the scattered lists have the disadvantage of maintenance headaches. `EEng (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oceania list. Unnecessary duplication of material for nothing more than fanfluff listcruft reasons. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why do you want to remove Australia? With this argument you also can remove United States and Canada articles because they are the only North American countries (next to Greenland, Bermuda and St Pierre et Miquelon) and merge this into the North American list. --31.16.61.184 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
The US and Canada lists should be eliminated as well, just as you say. This is a big job and it can't happen all at once. EEng (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's on my to do list. I started with nominating the Caribbean list to be merged with North America because it is just a random subset of North America where all the people are also listed. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is this a job? Are you paid to nominate articles for deletion? Petervermaelen (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Are you paid to make nonsense posts intentionally misinterpreting common English words? (Or was it unintentional?) EEng (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian Paul 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with the Oceania list. This is a fork that manages to cause maintenance hassle. Unified lists should be preferred. Some large countries such as the United States or China might justify a list for single country, but Australia does not have enough population. Ceosad (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say the United States or China might justify a stand-alone article because they are large countries. Then you suddenly say Australia doesn't have enough population. However Australia is a large country. Suppose tomorrow a plague spread in China and 99% of the population dies. Then all of a sudden it wouldn't justify a stand-alone article anymore? That argument doesn't make any sense. Petervermaelen (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Actually, no, China and the US will no doubt be merged into their respective continental list in due course. Anyway, if a plague killed 99% of China's population, there'd be more serious problems to deal with than these lists. Any not-ridiculous points you'd like to raise? EEng (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that makes no sense - the oldest people trivia buffs don't recognize a single Chinese or ANY Asian person outside Japan as being 110 years old, which is astonishing given how 60% of people in the world live in Asia and less then 3% of Asians live in Japan. Australia and Oceania together = 0.53% of global population and if rolled together into a country would be #36 on the most populous country list. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, I have some of the same suspicions for track and field, where buffs have deliberately skewed the results. Take a look at the lists at 100 metres#Fastest 100 metres runners, where my buddy Usain Bolt can help make the point. Jamaica and its three million inhabitants accounts for five of the ten fastest time among men, and tiny Trinidad and Tobago with 1.2 million people has three spots in the top 25. Yet there are only three men from all of Europe and another two men from the entire African continent on the top 25. Not one person from all of Asia -- China plus India and several dozen other countries -- appears among the 25 fastest men and only one woman from Asia in the top 25 women. Should we delete all track results or just start with the 100 metres based on the evident bias? Or could there be other confounding factors, both in terms of longevity and track? Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Chinese competitors were bared from competing by artificially high standards, you might have a point. That would be raciest. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if they were "bared" it would be "raciest"; perhaps the reduced weight may help increase speed. But they're not. Everyone in the world can compete in the 100 metres, but most don't and most fall short of the fastest times. I think that there is a confluence of factors of nature, nurture, organization and political structures across the globe in both extreme age and the 100 metres that has led to what appears to be bias to the uninitiated. I have every reason to believe that someone from China or India may one day be the world's fastest and / or the world's oldest, whether the measuring tool is a stopwatch or calendar. That this isn't so today is hardly evidence of bias in either field. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Alansohn on this. Obviously if any large group of people (Chinese or not) were all bared that would be, if not the raciest, certainly very racy, especially on television. EEng (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, the reason that there are very few non-Japanese Asians on the lists of oldest people is that record-keeping in areas like China and India are generally very poor. Not many people have birth certificates or anything like that, so their ages can't be proven. There's no point in making lists of the oldest people if you don't attempt to verify their ages - anyone can CLAIM to be 110/115/120 or whatever, but that doesn't mean they actually are. That's not to say that there aren't genuine supercentenarians in these places, just not many whose ages can be proven. It's just a case of taking a scientific, sceptical approach to things. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
China has records, just not up to Super Old enthusiast standards. All my Chinese friends know when they were born. It's an attack on Chinese culture and maybe race to reject all claims to super long life because of alleged poor documentation Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's called setting a certain standard of evidence required in order to consider a claim verified. If you actually bothered to do a small amount of research in to the topic which you insist on "cleaning up"(Personal attack removed)Ollie231213 (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't make any sense. The list of the verified oldest people is only a list of the top 100 oldest people ever, whereas this is a list of the oldest living and oldest ever people from a single country, which is a topic likely to be of interest to people. The two are not the same. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Merging to the Oceania list solves that problem. EEng (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the largest nation in Oceania, a standalone article is appropriate, and adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to support the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are there so many discrepancies between Article Oceania and Article Australia which should be a subset of Oceania? If Australia is so important it needs its own article, then is Australia+New Zealand+all the other countries too big a list to justify an article? Also try searching "Australian supercentenarians" - cause all I find are Wikipedia. mirrors of Wikipedia, and a couple blogs that quote Wikipedia. No independant coverage of this as a topic so it fails our criteria for lists at WP:LISTN. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search on australia supercentenarians -wikipedia gets 10,800 results. The correpsonding search using Oceania gets 2,090 results. If there are discrepancies, they can be fixed, so that's hardly a justification for deletion. Can you point to all of the articles showing "Oceania supercentenarians" as the more common title? Alansohn (talk) 9:23 am, Today (UTC−5)
Would renaming the merged article List of supercentenarians in Australia and Oceania make people willing to support the merge? Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Australia is part of the continent Oceania. If the result would be "keep", accept this please.--37.4.93.13 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep. Australia is the largest nation in Oceana, Just as the US is the largest in North America. The arguments of records issues with China and elsewhere are totally irrelevant to a list in a location in which records are good. Unless we are making war on lists in general, there is no reason why this one shouldn't stand. Jacona (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Australia has a high number of cases fully verified and big chances to see an increasing longevity rate in the future. No plausible reasons to delete this page. I suggest to cancel "List of supercentenarians from Oceania" and refresh a page for New Zealand cases because I think that a classification by country is better that by continent above all pages for Asia, North America and Oceania. --Dakota86x (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • SNOW Keep Reasons listed above are convincing to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced and concerns a nation large enough to have it's own page on this subject. 930310 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Well sourced? All but two references are GRG tables. Can you provide reliable sources discussing "Australian supercentenarians" that aren't a list of names from the GRG? CommanderLinx (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly over on the oldest German page editors are arguing that Germans are private and don't want to send personal documents to GRG - something I agree with - so sourcing only to GRG tables is pretty suspect. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covers a political body that already existed 110 years ago; various other reasons have been mentioned above. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • User:Legacypac, I believe you are falsely attempting to cast editors with whom you disagree in a negative light. How did you come to your conclusion that 7&6=thirteen is a single purpose account? This user has been editing Wikipedia for quite some time and in many areas. Falsely accusing a user of being an SPA is a form of personal attack. Jacona (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
83,000 edits and over 8 years of service. I will gladly compare my Wikipedia record to User:Legacypac's. WP:personal attack and WP:Civil should require a quick retraction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that - they voted keep in the middle of a group of spas voting keep - just a slip I've fixed. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shit happens. No harm, no foul. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Legacypac, you do gotta cool it. Calling 7&6 an {spa} really makes it seem like you're way too quick on the trigger. EEng (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Legacypac, I also looked through the edits of User:Ollie231213. While this editor has made many edits to longevity articles, they have also made many to football related topics. The SPA tag, which states that the user has made "few or no edits" outside the subject matter does not apply. It is not acceptable to just start casting WP:ASPERSIONS at any editor one disagrees with! Please be very careful before continuing with these personal attacks. Attacking editors rather than making a case with policy is unlikely to produce the desired results. Jacona (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ollie started making a few football edits after he was repeatedly tagged as a spa and if you look back further as I have you should agree with the spa statement. I even saw one place where he tagged himself as an spa! Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And do what? Calling one another names does not aid the deliberative process or build collegiality. Randomly calling out other editors without any factual basis is WP:Disruptive. When you find yourself deep in a hole it is time to stop digging. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging SPAs as such is standard procedure at AfD, and it I who first began doing so in these longevity nominations. Ollie, without question, fits the bill. EEng (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest the Keep voters who are quick to criticism my policy based nomination find a policy reason to keep a list that should overlap another list by 90% without adding any information that is not completely obvious on the larger list? ILIKEIT is not a good reason. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPA's are not necessarily "evil", as many are "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest" who "contribute neutrally". personal attacks, however, are. Jacona (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, WP:SPATG states that " If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." and that "You should under no circumstance consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag." Jacona (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ollie started making a few football edits after he was repeatedly tagged as a spa..." Or maybe I just like football? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a variant of an ad hominem fallacy. Not particularly useful. If you really have evidence bring it on. If you don't then desist. And talk about real issues, not personalities. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supercentenarians is not a broad topic. As explained at the spa page, it is not necessarily an attack, but it is interesting to see spa accounts come out in mass for these AfDs. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Australia as a big country with well organized infrastructure to document the lifetime of its citizens and at least 110 years old history as an independant country is qualified for such a list also as countries like USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Brazil, Russia and Japan. So keep this article.--Kachelus (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to the Oceania article. The less list-clutter, the better. I believe this fails WP:LISTN since all but two references are GRG links and nothing discussing this particular list. I note that the Oceania article contains the exact same list of names that are in this one so "Australia" could be merged/redirected there without loss of any info. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. In any case, this is an apples and oranges comparison - different places, different articles, and none of those are actually (modern day) countries. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course they're different places and different articles -- if they were the same place and same article, it wouldn't be an analogy, would it? Not sure what the significance is of modern-day country or not. EEng (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic article that can be used as a resource for those who are searching for the specific information included as part of this article. The article is also adequately sourced. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They could search/sort a grand Oceania list, or whole-world list, and get exactly the same information, with the added bonus that (if they wanted) they could see e.g. all Australia and NZ, or other combination of their choice, in one place. EEng (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's even simpler then that since outside Austrilia there are only 2 people from New Zealand and 1 other person that are supposed to be on the list. We are talking over 90% overlap. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)#[reply]
I think there are two problems: One is the overlap you mentioned. The other is the fact, that Oceania is a continent and we have lists of supercentenarians from all continents, Australia is a country, and we have lists of supercentenarians from different bigger and important countries, e.g. Australia, USA, Canada, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan and so on. This creates an overlap and I cannot not see a problem in this fact, if both lists would be updated regularly. So Australian fans update the Australian list and continent fans update the Oceania list. No one is discriminated in this case, what we have now. There is no significant reason for a change.--31.16.61.124 (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is part of an effort to eliminate the country pages, which are not getting updated and are far out of sync. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I cannot see any reason for deletion of the country pages, especially that ones, which are well-sourced. Perhaps I am alone with this opinion, but I think, much work here of several users would be destroyed by deletion of well-sourced contents.--Kachelus (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would work be lost if the country lists are merged each to their corresponding continent list? EEng (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The European continent list e.g. ends at rank 50. Many European countries there do not have a supercentenarian in this area. So this work would be destroyed - look at the Swiss or Austrian supercentenarians and show me where I can find them on the European list - both lists of Swiss and Austrian supercentenarians were deleted and work was destroyed. Think about that, please, before you will delete other countries like in this case Australia.--Kachelus (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge means that whatever's in the country list is added to the continent list before the country list is deleted.EEng (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Oceania list does not include all the people on this list but it should. Merging solves that problem. We already merged 4 European country lists to the continent article so arguing against that is too late. There is no reason the list has to stop at 100 people - why not 1000 which is another valid number. As for this country being big enough for a list - how about Belgium - is it small enough to not have a list? Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons stated by others !voting to keep. Also, suggest a snow close to shut this discussion down ASAP because of the complete cluster-F^@# this AfD has become. Those engaging in the childishness here should be trouted for it. Or maybe "Lutefisked" since it's the Christmas season. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Australian_supercentenarians&oldid=1068981845"