- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The outcome of this request for deletion was to 
Delete. Consensus to delete. Note that !votes with incorrect/invalid arguments have not been considered. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Nonagenarians
[change source]Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This request includes the nominated category and its subcategories. Not everything needs a category. I see no advantage to this category. If this rfd passes, I plan to request the same for the octogenarian and septuagenarian categories and their subcategories. The centenarian categories are more noteworthy, because people who reach that age are often featured in the media for it. Auntof6 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
Discussion
[change source]I created this a parent cat to Category:American nonagenarians and Category:English nonagenarians after another editor created those. I agree with their existence to show which notable people have had long lives. Jim Michael (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- What determines how long a life is notable? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is individuals who have reached 70, 80 or 90 years of age a subject that our readers are likely to be interested in? Is it encyclopaedic? 100 is notable for the reasons Auntof6 gives, with it often being in local media (and some governments give a bit of recognition for this milestone). The earlier categories, however, I don't see the need for. Osiris (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think it is something that many of our readers are likely to be interested in. Jim Michael (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- How about making list articles for these people instead of categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you could think of what the titles would be and how that would be better than categories. I think many readers are interested in seeing who a particular person's peers are. Age and nationality would be two criteria identifying that. Jim Michael (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. On balance, I think all age categories below centenarians should be deleted. My feeling is that we have gone too far in category-creation, and it is time to rein it in. Age at death is to a large extent accidental, and conditional upon things which bear no relationship to the deceased person, such as the state of medical care in their community. As I've suggested earlier, extra categories make the readers' work harder as they look for the categories which really do matter. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- These categories include many living people as well as dead, so it is not merely about age at death. In any case, saying that lifespan is to a large extent accidental ignores the fact that an individual's lifestyle choices are, in the developed world, the largest factor in determining a person's life expectancy. Different types of people have massively different life expectancies. Which part of the world they are from, their socioeconomic level, genes and gender are relevant, as is their occupation. For example, rock musicians have a very high rate of premature death. I can't think of many rock musicians who have had very long lives. In contrast, academics tend to have long lives. Jim Michael (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is the fourth time you have made statements or cross-argued against the opinions of others. The space is for editors to voice their opinions, without fear of being harrassed. It is vexatious to keep on and on restating an already clearly stated opinion. Stop it, please. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- These categories include many living people as well as dead, so it is not merely about age at death. In any case, saying that lifespan is to a large extent accidental ignores the fact that an individual's lifestyle choices are, in the developed world, the largest factor in determining a person's life expectancy. Different types of people have massively different life expectancies. Which part of the world they are from, their socioeconomic level, genes and gender are relevant, as is their occupation. For example, rock musicians have a very high rate of premature death. I can't think of many rock musicians who have had very long lives. In contrast, academics tend to have long lives. Jim Michael (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This request is due to close on 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
- I just came across the page, and think it could be nice if this category stayed. I know the discussion is closed, but still hope this message will be seen. The question here is who should be considered a nonagenarian and who isn't.. I would suggest that everyone significant enough who was born before the beginning of world war two, which means that as of now they are 74 years of age or more. However, I can also understand the those who doubt the significance of this page, so why get more people and count votes? Yambaram (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the discussion isn't closed yet. Nonagenarian means a person who has reached the age of 90. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.