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 merge to List of supercentenarians by continent. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian supercentenarians[edit]

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)

Redundant to List of supercentenarians by continent#Supercentenarians in Oceania. Which contains substantially the same content. Any minor details not in the main article can be added from this one. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Oceania list article is already gone, merged to List of supercentenarians by continent, as all other country specific lists on this subject soon will be or already have. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX are not valid arguments for keeping this article. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that a speedy keep vote is disingenuous. You are free to have and share a keep opinion, but six other people already voted to either delete, redirect, or merge this article, so it was never going to be speedily kept. That was just to fluff up your own minority opinion, not make a substantive addition to this conversation. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reject your allegation that my comment was dishonest. What I wrote is what I believe therefore to imply that I am being dishonest is an attack upon my integrity. However this does not surprise me as you have a history of personal attacks so this is more of the same from you. I am entitled to my opinion like everybody else who uses and edits Wikipedia articles. Crveni5 (talk)
You know what you did (packaging your vote as speedy keep, not the content of the vote) was a disingenuous attempt to save the article by demending the article be kept at once, regardless of everyone else's stated opinions, so don't pretend your a victim or project your insincerity onto me and claim I'm a bully. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2018 (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.