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 delete. As pointed out in the nomination, there are several issues with this article that cannot be fixed here. If a 3rd party list existed separately, that would be another story. Tone 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest twins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of oldest twins (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)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. No established notability of the list per WP:LISTN, as none of the provided sources discusses a list of oldest twins. The only cited source that is a list, http://www.grg.org/EAKralTwins.htm, has not been updated since 2012. This article is a WP:SYNTHESIS juxtaposition of occasional "old twins" cases reported by local press. Most sources for "known living" twins are several years old, and therefore provide no assurance that these people are still alive. In summary, I do not believe this article can be saved. — JFG talk 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia had improved somewhat between 2005 and 2011, but the fact that even as late as October 2012 the deletion of the crap fanispamcruftisement article Tanka prose was still controversial proves we definitely weren't "there" yet. Not only can consensus change, but in cases like this it can practically be taken as a given. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing on what this page looked like then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dream Focus You're comparing apples and oranges. Read WP:LISTN and then think about the fact that these media articles talk only about specific local cases, not large groups of twins ranked by age, which is what is being done on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It proves it is a topic that is notable. That anyone who achieves this anywhere in the world will get news coverage. Dream Focus 14:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your blanket statement is obviously false and shows that you do not understand how any of this works. Just because there is sporadic local coverage about old twins "over there" does not mean a list of oldest twins is suddenly notable "over here". To have a list like this on Wikipedia, there needs to be WP:SIGCOV reliable sources that LIST people in this same manor, but there aren't because this article is fancruft and not based on applicable coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt its just local newspaper coverage, but state and national coverage at times as well. Anyway, it also gets coverage in books such as being a regular entry in Guinness World Records. Google book search for "oldest twins" "Guinness World Records" and you'll find different yearly editions covering that. Dream Focus 14:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the record in Guinness and while they do give out records for the oldest living male and female sets of twins, that does not prove your point, but mine. They have no LIST of oldest twins by age as far as I can tell, which is what would be necessary for this article to exist. You don't seem to understand that the topic of old twins getting coverage does nothing to justify this article because sustained WP:SIGCOV reliable sources do not specifically group people this way. It's APPLES and Oranges. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Lubbad85 (☎) What major news outlets or other reliable sources publish long lists of oldest twins ranked by age? Only longevity fan sites do, hence why this article fails WP:LISTN. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2019 (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.
More