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. krimpet ✽ 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch supercentenarians (2nd nom)[edit]

I have listed the following articles, which were tagged to point to this AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl has been merging perfectly good standalone supercentenarian articles such as this one, List of American supercentenarians, List of British supercentenarians, and List of French supercentenarians, all of which I am nominating too. They hardly resemble a list rather than a collection of once-supercentenarian articles. It is just organized nonsense, and without it becoming an actual list, I suggest splitting at least the ones with the most information into seperate article. I have tried to do that myself, but, instead of violating the WP:3RR, which I personally hate, she nominated them for deletion. So, even though this was nominated before and failed, I am nominating it again. In case I have not explained this well enough, I will be monitering this very closely and will surely answer your questions. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

You cannot give every person who lives past 110 years an article because, at the end of the day, they are just people. Skepticism may be raised by creating an article about the world's oldest person, but the 25th oldest woman in Kansas? This is not a census beaureu (or obituary). Unless they have notable achievments, then you are just creating articles about residents who have died at an old age. The list is fine (eventually, that'll get too long aswell). ^Dlae│_here 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make comments about my age. I agree that Wikipedia should not have articles on every super-c, but this list isn't even what it says it is. And It can't, because there is so many. Only a handful of American super-cs have articles, and they are the more older and notable ones. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, WP:POINTy nomination only two weeks after the previous nomination was closed as "keep".
As discussed at the previous AfD, I had been merging the articles which do not meet WP:BIO into these lists, but since all such mergers have been reverted by Kitia, I have been taking the articles instead to AfD to decide whether they should be kept, merged or deleted. Kitia's complaint here appears to be that that because there is no presumption of notability for supercentenarians, it is somehow unfair to subject to them to the same WP:BIO tests as all the other articles without a presumption of notability. Interesting argument, but no reason to disrupt AfD with rapid-repeat nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we put an end to this edit war? There is bad faith on both sides. Both side are guilty of retaliation and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Both User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Kitia are guilty of disruptive behavior, and disrupting Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I strongly object to the allegation that trying to merge or nominate at AfD unreferenced or under-referenced article on non-notable people is disruptive. (It would indeed be disruptive if we abolished WP:V, but if that happens I'll stop contributing). There is no edit war that I see. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um. "Amen" to what? the nomination, the comment that you replied under, or what else? Do you endorse keeping, deleting, or the comment above? Please clarify. Thanks! --Storkk (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Unclear that there is any evidence to overturn the clear consensus of keep set two weeks ago, in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. It seems hard to understand why AfD is being used to try to settle an edit war over the choice of how to keep the articles as standalone or grouped. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem with the article is that it promotes to be a list, but functions as a collaboration om merged articles. Besides, it cannot ever be alist, because then it would get too big. So, we can split off the notable articles and delete the verry small amount of others.''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I assume that the "List of foo... supercentenarians" articles should be a list, pointing to main articles of individuals with sufficient independent notability. Even if every individual had their own article, there'd still be a place for the "list of" articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Kitia, I have absolutely no objection to splitting out the individuals to separate articles when notability is established. However, the reason for creating the article was that notability has not been established for the people listed here.

In reply to Alanasohn, the idea of creating a combined article to list of individuals without sufficient independent notability was precisely what was discussed only 2 weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians. Unless something has changed substantially since that discussion, this AfD is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were too little people in the discussion to draw a consensus. And I agree wholeheartedly with Alansohn. And yes, being old does establish notability. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If you disagree with the outcome of an XfD, take it to WP:DRV. The closing admin decide that a consensus had been reached, and it is disruptive to bring an article straight back to AfD just because you dislike the outcome, but have nothing new to add to the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and keep. This is not the way to establish a new concensus. This is getting close to disruption. DGG (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as this hasn't been closed yet, let me take the opportunity to express my support for BrownHairedGirl's program of merging too-small and undercited articles into lists like this, where their content is more appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But its not a list, at least in my sense of the term.''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as list when no notability other than age is apparent. Where notability other than age is apparent, point from the list to an Individuals Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the members are not notable for anything other than their age, WP should therefore include their existence (their age is notable), but should not have a perpetual stub-class article (since the vast majority have no hope of ever having Reliable Sources for anything other than their age) on all members. Sourced lists for each nationality are much preferable to perpetually unsourced (and unsourceable) stubs on all individuals. --Storkk (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (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.