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 no consensus. Most "keep" opinions are quite shallowly argued, and don't address the WP:OR issue of what to consider "Poland" for the purpose of this article. But that can be editorially remedied by refocusing the list on people born in the territory of the current state of Poland. As to the broader issue of whether such country-level lists are appropriate, this discussion does not yield consensus.  Sandstein  17:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish supercentenarians[edit]

List of Polish 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)

1. This list by definition should be empty. There was no country of Poland between 1795 and 1918, which means we will not need this article until 2028 (110 years after the founding of the modern Polish state).

2. Even if you try to redefine this as people born in the area of what is now Poland, the shifting borders and various divisions of what we call Poland make it tough to determine who should go in which country. Hence the struggle in the article to class people by region

3. It is actually a list of 1 person who was 110 at death at the top - but then a bunch of other slice and dice lists of people below. The people that don't live in Poland are counted elsewhere anyway.

4. The List of European supercentenarians covers or should cover all the "Polish" people living in Europe anyway so having this list creates unnecessary maintenance. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete recognizing that the Europe list will have all these people, which can be searched and sorted at will. EEng (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an article of Polish people and culture, not Polish official politics. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is restricted to people born within current Poland borders, regardless of their culture or language. There is a Ukrainian on there and people that moved to other countries scores of years ago. This is a list of superold people, not about Poland. Did you want to recast your vote after looking carefully at the inclusion criteria? Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Europe is a big place. It makes more sense to split it up in to sub-divisions than to have one massive article. Also, for the last few weeks you've been arguing in favour of deleting supercentenarian biographies on the basis that "the information about these people is better presented on a list". But now you want to delete the lists! Are we going to reinstate the biographies, then? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Editors are trying to reduce the number of overlapping lists. This topic is overburdened by lists that slice and dice super old people. As things are now structured, a man born in Warsaw who moved to the US should be listed on pages for Poland, Austria-Hungary, Europe, North America, US, oldest people, oldest men, top 10 men, living or not living versions of the list, US state, and maybe 10 other places. There are not enough editors interested in maintaining the lists, or who know how they all fit together. Less lists, better organized, are part of the answer. Lists of mini bios below a reduced number of table lists are a great idea. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, editors are NOT struggling to maintain the lists. You've only been editing in the topic area for a few weeks so I don't see how you can know that. Now will you please explain how "less lists are the answer"? Wikipedia is not paper. All your suggestion will achieve is limit the amount of information available. Listing the oldest people from individual countries is of interest to people. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

We don't want to "delete the lists", just all the overlapping lists and sublists; everyone still goes on the continental lists. A smaller number of large, comprehensive lists is much better, since the reader can search and sort according to his interest, instead of according to some predefined set of slices and dices. EEng (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make such changes, how about starting a discussion on the WOP project talk page, rather than these never ending, whack-a-mole AfD discussions which are getting on everyone's nerves. I would actually like to spend some time making productive edits to these pages but instead I'm having to forever spend my time commenting in AfD's. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

If you improved the pages to get rid of the wild obvious inaccuracies the deletion efforts would be reduced. Obviously there are not enough interested editors to properly maintain so many slice and dice lists. So let's make it easier.

• 1. A big List of oldest living people that is sortable based on all the variables and can be updated with people that pass 110 and people that die.

• 2. a few Lists of people over 110 when they died by location (North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe) Within these articles you could have a little table extracting oldest by country in the region if desired. The regional lists would just grow as super old people die or are discovered to have already died. Mini-bios go below whichever list the person is on, with a section link from the name to the. People notable beyond a mini-bio are linked to their page.

• 3. Get rid off all the country, former country, men, woman, emigrant and immigrant, and other silliness lists that lead to absurd claims like the person I found who was noted as being born in both Poland AND Germany, but dying in Switzerland, and (not actually) the oldest in the EU.

This comment posted on another discussion is helpful here: "Actually, independent Poland as it existed pre-1773, 1918 to 1939, and again from 1945 to the present, includes parts of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Nazi Third Reich, Russian Empire until 1918, Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991, Lithuania, Belorussia and Ukraine. In the last 242 years, Poland has been much larger, much smaller, and non-existent geographically. Oh, and for the record, during the partitions of Poland between 1773 and 1795, the Russian Empire got the largest slice of Poland as it existed prior to 1773. Thought you should know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)" Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree with Dirtlawyer's statement that things would be different if the "wild inaccuracies" were got rid of. Even if it were completely up to date and accurate, this list (for example) would still serve no purpose, given the existence of the Europe list. EEng (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary content fork. I like EEng's and Legacypac's idea of simplifing this old people stuff. And Legacypac is correct this list has nothing to do with Polish culture, dziękuję bardzo. --Bejnar (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ollie - I can fairly draw the conclusion that editing all these lists is a problem for editors because I've now checked may lists and found serious inconsistencies all over the place. An American women found on the US list should be on the North American list, but often is not. In fact the US list is about as long as the North America list, even though it should also cover people from Canada and the Caribbean lists. You might think someone over 110 who was born in what was Austria-Hungary and shown in the Austria sublist there would be on the stand alone Austria country list, but these lists don't match - not even close. Japan has >3% of Asia's population but 100% of the super old. Yet the Asia list did not match the Japan list. It is a massive mess. The claim this universe of lists is being maintained adequately is highly misleading and should lead to enforcement of sanction for trying to mislead other editors. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of this discussion is appropriate for an AfD. This is clearly about a wider issue, not the individual articles, so take this elsewhere. And stop with the pathetic threats, I did no such thing. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Deleting inaccuate articles that duplicate other articles is very much an appropriate use of AfD. I just nominated the Czech Republic list for deletion too. You might think the managing about 6 names of people over 110 years old would be easy, but it's a mess. Much better to have fewer, but better lists. There was no threat, more a reminder there is an open case dealing with possible sanctions so it would be good to be careful not to add more evidence to it with misleading posts here. Legacypac (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT intentionally mislead anyone. Your WP:BADFAITH accusations are completely out of order. Can you please give links to specific problems that you can see, please? I have been editing in the area for two years and I have observed that articles in the scope of the project are generally well-maintained. We're dealing with a number of articles across the scope of the project, so it's more appropriate to have a discussion on the project page about how to deal with problems. Instead, you have just made a large number of significant changes to a good number of articles without looking to find consensus first. You don't WP:OWN these articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I've pointed out the issues with your points here. None of us OWN the articles. I'm not taking the changes required to clean up inconsistencies and proliferation of lists against WP policy personally. If you do take it personally may e a little space from the topic is needed? I was going to say the topic is not life and death but it actually is. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I will use the same argument as with the Czechs: It is best to try to establish a single unified list for the whole Europe. Europe has so many small countries and border changes that keeping these separate is like begging for trouble. In the 2050s they might be able to exist separately, but we do not yet have enough content to include for each and every European country. In contrast, the United States probably deserves its own article. Lets wait half a century, and then reconsider recreating this article. User:Ceosad

Well can't we have this kind of discussion all in one go, and try to establish consensus on how best to present this content, rather than in a spate of AfDs? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

the discussion is happening all at once across a few example article to establish precedence. When we have consensus we can work together to impliment it across the rest of the country articles. Some people would scream if we did not put these through AfD. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean discussion in the same place, not at the same time. You've failed to comply with WP:BEFORE. The whole thing is a total mess. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

What part of BEFORE would that be? EEng (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you raise any concerns on the talk page or the project page first. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

as explained elsewhere these are test cases at AfD. Many will not accept a deletion discussion made on a project or article page. The first test case just went delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_Nordic_countries and others seem to be following. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE says, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as ((notability)), ((hoax)), ((original research)), or ((advert)); this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Obviously that means to do so if there's any reason to think such a discussion might resolve the problem(s). That's very seldom (which is why you hardly ever see such discussions on article talk pages), and there's no reason to think such a discussion would have led anywhere other than where we are now i.e. the suggestion that the list is redundant to the Europe list -- a suggestion with which I wholeheartedly agree. EEng (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a cop out. It's a perfectly sensible idea to have a discussion on the project page where involved editors can express their views as to how this information should be displayed (i.e. do people support having individual country articles or one big European article). Instead, what will no doubt happen is that the articles for the smaller countries will be deleted but the ones for the larger countries will be kept, leaving us with just a few countries left, which is a mess. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three similar discussions just closed as delete in the last couple hours and the others are trending that way. I would nom all the country lists all together but past group noms I've done on pageant winners were poorly received, so we go one by one starting from the most poorly considered articles. There are old and new tags all over WOP titles and yet the confusion between lists continues - so BEFORE has been tried. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can still discuss these issues on talk pages or project pages! AfDs aren't always the first place to turn. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appropriately notable standalone list of individuals from Poland who resided or moved from that country. Alansohn (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps now a European list is still somewhat manageable. But more and more people reach a very advanced age. Europe is very huge and if you start to delete lists of separate countries, soon you wont see the trees through the forest anymore. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus the forest. Cutting the trees now and recreate them in 2050 is not a great idea. Once a tree is cut its gone for good. Petervermaelen (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I think you should review the meaning of the idiom forest for the trees. EEng (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update related very similar articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in the Russian_Empire, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary have now closed as delete. The sister articles on Caribbean and Nordic Countries were also deleted. The same arguments used here were used on those 4 with good effect. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update very similar article List of Czech supercentenarians was just deleted based on the same rational as advanced here. Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that very similar article List of Australian supercentenarians was just kept based on the same rational as advanced here.--Kachelus (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

List of Australian supercentenarians just closed so not fair to say I missed it. It covers a different situation outside Europe. Editors might also note the flood of Single Purpose Accounts, even worse then on this one.

• Note to Closer Ollie's conduct in this discussion was a factor in his new topic ban [1]. I don't want to grave dance, but that may be a valid factor to consider when assessing opinions in a close here, especially given the volume of comments he made on this AfD. Legacypac (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with other users.--Inception2010 (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

• Delete a unified list makes sense from a practical standpoint. Managing multiple lists with similar content is just busy work. Blackmane (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - because the list is needed. and appropriate as it makes it easier for readers to find specific information.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ why is this list "needed"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 I stated it in my reasoning for Keep just above.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As little of a fan I am of these articles, AFD is not cleanup. If there's an issue with the definition of Poland, that's best for an RFC or other dispute resolution, not deletion. There exists a Poland today and so there is at least a possibility of keeping a list of the oldest people in Poland. Second, if there's little names here due entirely to the definition of Poland and the idea is to merge this into a single Europe article, again, AFD is not cleanup. Propose merger of all the small national articles and then deal with merging them, once there's some consensus to support that, then any attempts to create/recreate these pages can rightfully be taken to AFD. I don't see any indication that any of the other pages in Template:Longevity for current nations (as opposed to Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire ones) have been successfully deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czech was recently deleted, just closed faster then this discussion. There were no Hungary, or Russian articles outside the deleted one, they were amalgamations of various current countries lists. Plus Austria used to exist but was merged. [Nordic Countries] was deleted recently. List of Benelux supercentenarians was Prod deleted fairly recently. Brazil and Japan were merged up to South America and Asia respectively. Switzerland was deleted again recently. We need one Europe list. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again you forgot to mention, that List of Australian supercentenarians, also nominated for deletion a few weeks ago, was kept.--Kachelus (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia had or has 26 names and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians was largely of question of keeping or merging to Oceania. Czech is probably a better example as it had basically a single leftover person when looking at the actual nation as it is, same as Poland here. Nevertheless, I think we first need a RFC on all nations on whether or not we use historic location or just those born in the place of the current nation and I'm not sure I'd agree with Legacypac's focus on people born in Poland proper. It's no different than dealing with say, old civilizations or people: was someone really a Category:2nd-century Indian people when India didn't exist in the 2nd century? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, Ricky81682. It was my intention not to tell only about the deleted pages, and most of them I preferred to delete, too, but also to say, there is with Australia one case the users wanted to keep that. So every participant of the discussion here can decide what he or she wants: Vote for deletion and look for arguments of that like the Benelux or Russian Empire way, or vote for keeping and look for arguments for that like the Australian way. It is not fair, just to hide the cases that are against the own intention. That's it what I want to say, nothing else.--Kachelus (talk) 14:52, 30 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.