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 speedy keep. WP:SK1 - only proposing merging (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living people[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are too many Oldest People articles with overlapping lists upon lists interwoven with lists. This article should be deleted and redirected to Oldest people#Verified oldest living people which is a section that used to contain the top 10 names on this list instead of the roughly 50 names on the longer list. No data will be lost and the presentation is the same exactly,just as a section of an article that previously contained a preview of the list. This gives the readers a comprehensive look at the topic rather then sending them to page after page of lists sliced and diced. Also the title Oldest people is more intuitive and succinct then List of oldest living people. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Notification: The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Only an experienced editor should consider closing this, carefully considering the weight of the policy arguments.

Keep Sufficient interest to retain a separate article. Continued attempts to delete/combine these articles is counterproductive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So delete the top 10 list from the Oldest people article then? We should not duplicate the info on two pages. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is exactly the kind of article specified by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists; No legitimate argument for deletion has been offered and no policy-based argument has been suggested by the nominator to justify deletion. Inherently, there will be material that appears in different places in such situations and any issues with potential overlap with the article Oldest people should be addressed by consensus at Talk:Oldest people, not here. Alansohn (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Alansohn is right on the mark on this. Jacona (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is one of the most important about longevity. A list of the oldest living people deserves a its own page. The fact that there is a repeat of SOME names doesn't make it a duplication!!!--Dakota86x (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about 50% of Oldest people Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and updated material over lots of years. I am very sorry but I cannot see any reason for deletion.--37.4.93.37 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list should clearly be retained somewhere: it's encyclopedic information many readers will be interested in, has clear criteria for inclusion, isn't particularly long, and there's nothing particularly wrong with it. The nominator doesn't offer any rationale for deletion beyond a preference to have the list as part of another article. If we decide to do that then the content will need to be merged/redirected rather than deleted. Hut 8.5 16:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This page is extremely helpful and easy to understand. I use it on an almost daily basis. Most encyclopedic. JKSD93 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I see the article is significant enough to remain as a separate article . Well referenced and does meet Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Remi143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per all of the above plus I'll express similar confusion as to why this is here. Artw (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it is rather pointless to have two identical lists -- or virtually so, for editors might be easily update one and not the other. We don't even have a ((main)) template on Oldest_people#Verified_oldest_living_people to indicate to readers that there's a duplicate list somewhere else. I think the nominator is perfectly justified within WP:MERGEREASON in proposing this. When his redirect was reversed, perhaps the the next step should have been to apply a Merge tag and generate discussion that way. Instead, he's chosen to take this to Afd. While people may disagree with that method, I think the basic logic is sound. We don't want to have two parallel lists of the same thing, especially now that both lists are the same length, at 50+ names. ~~Support~~ Redirect and merge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This meets all the applicable policies and guidelines, and is a valid spinout from the main article which should have the aforementioned "main" template added to point to this. In all honesty this seems like a nomination on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree and am in the small minority. But I'd say the nomination meets WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is policy. I can't see why we're committing ourselves to two parallel lists going forward and if kept I daresay each list would need to have a  alert informing editors to make their updates to the other list, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a spinout, it's the original list. The content is only in Oldest people because the nominator added it shortly before starting this AfD. Hut 8.5 10:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 100% of the information, complete with sources, would be hosted within the Oldest people article - as it is right now already. There is no attempt to delete the information, only an attempt to present it within the Oldest people article which is a better title. A number of commentators here appear confused, thinking this is an attempt to delete the info. It is only an attempt to get everything on one well named page rather then having the same info on two different pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and per WP:SPINOUT, we do not appear to have reached a size on the main article where a split off list is necessary or an aid to simple navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and more thing - and this is just a question: if I'm an editor who's put time into List of oldest living people... don't I want the maximum number of readers reading it? Because that's what'll happen if it's the centrepiece of the main article, as proposed. That's how I see it, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion is only for proposing that a page be deleted, as the name implies. If you want content to be merged into another article then you should not be using this process. Indeed merging the content elsewhere would prevent the page from being deleted because the page history would be required for attribution (which is legally necessary). This page is not a spinoff, the material was only added to Oldest people by Legacypac shortly before this AfD was started. If the suggestion is to have this content remain in Oldest people then we cannot delete this page anyway. Hut 8.5 10:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then please block Legacypac. He's a man on a mission who has nothing better to do then deleting oldest people Pages. He already destroyed Living Knights Cross Holders now Oldest Living people. Whats next? He must be stopped!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the whole history of the article is lost when it is deleted. I use the history regularly as well to see who things developed. This Legacypac wants to change everything about oldest people what has developed over years. At the Living Knights Cross Holders Afd page he talked the same shit. Nothing will be lost. All will be merged in another article. Now the whole information is lost. Its enough!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is misleading as a look at this editor's talk page shows. {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dangermouse600]. I am seeking a merge which is perfectly acceptable at AfD and a common outcome. No history will be lost here, and Longevity is an area that needs a lot of cleanup with masnu overlapping and conflicting lists. See link to the ArbComm case for details. Legacypac (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does my talk page show? That you alleged to help to save the information? Even the User page of czolgosz where he tried to save the list was searched an destroyed. There was and is no need for cleanup here. Go cleanup somewhere else!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dangermouse, please keep in mind that our priority here is the readers not our own internal politics and squabbles. Arguing against a merge because you want to preserve the edit history as a record of who contributed what to the standalone list (if I understand you correctly) is a wrong way of looking at it. I'd repeat that the only important question is what's the simplest and easiest for readers. That said, if this Afd fails I'd suggest that Legacypac tags the list for a merge to allow a discussion. It may be a waste of time, but perhaps some of the opposition here is indeed a product of so many Afds? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is merged then we would have to keep the edit history, if only as a redirect. This is a legal requirement of the licence that Wikipedia uses and isn't up for discussion. While "merge" is a perfectly valid outcome of an AfD, starting an AfD isn't an appropriate thing to do if you don't want the content to be deleted. Hut 8.5 18:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, of course. I've changed my !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was correct to blank the article and redirect it to Oldest people#Verified oldest living people since the oldest living people already have been listed there. It is unnecessary to have two articles referring to the same thing so please revert/undo this edit. Redirecting to Oldest people is correct, the oldest living people are listed there and that's enough. Björn Bergman 12:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Information is duplicated because Legyacypac duplicated it before he nominated this article for deletion. Do you understand this? On Oldest people are too much lists and too much edits, what makes it hard to follow every change if you are only interested in living people. Oldest living people was some weeks ago a much bigger article. It was systematically shot down since then. I will no longer accept this salami-tactic of deleting all information about oldest people.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no one wants to explain why there are so many discrepancies across the overlapping lists [[1]] [2] so consolidation is the answer. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have to ask: once your redirect was reverted, why didn't you simply apply ((merge)) tags and begin the discussion that way? It would have had a vastly better chance of getting you the result you wanted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the off wiki coordinated efforts of single purpose accts are harder to manage on a talk page. This is an area with some very dedicated POV pushers. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 24 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.