Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Longevity navbox

I have done some work on the {{Longevity}} navbox, notably re-organized haphazard "see also" articles by subject matter, and simplified lists of record-holders (supercentenarians, war veterans, etc.) More eyes and comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 11:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion to spur things on

To start with a realistic goal, what does anyone think of going through the names at List of the verified oldest people and determining if there are any articles worth deleting/merging? One of the perpetual problems is the number of minimally informative stubs, and that list certainly contains its share. We can compile a list of possible candidates here, then go from there. Thoughts? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. And my apologies for not pushing ahead with this, have had an unexpected move and a change of job so not enough time to give this the attention it needs atm. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I've had my own issues that kept me less active than anticipated. Any help anyone can give would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Here are some page suggestions to delete: Christina Cock, Adelina Domingues, Eunice Sanborn, Mathew Beard, Ethel Lang (supercentenarian), Neva Morris, Eugénie Blanchard, Delphine Gibson, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, Goldie Steinberg, Mary Josephine Ray, and Lucy Hannah. I didn't go through the top 50 on the list, except Lucy Hannah. These articles are stuffed full of the usual longevity trivia and boasts about various age records, and some have even been deleted before. Most are from the era of mass old people article creation and fluff up the articles with pointless stuff like was second oldest this until this other persons validation was withdrawn, now was oldest this! It's interesting to point out that the GRG's Robert Young publicly claims on the 110 club website that Lucy Hannah actually died in her 90's and yet the GRG he heads still marks her claim as validated. The GRG is such a reliable source. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be a mess but I'll add a few more I've been meaning to nominate: Alice Stevenson, Marie Brémont, Germaine Haye (unless notability as a poet can be demonstrated), Marie-Thérèse Bardet, Marcelle Narbonne, Jane Gray (supercentenarian), Annie Jennings, Eva Morris, John Evans (supercentenarian), Ada Roe, Aida Mason and John Mosely Turner. There's a few more on List of British supercentenarians (and probably the other country pages) that need to be merged/redirected to lists but I think I've added enough. There's HEAPS of these WP:PERMASTUBs still around :-(. We can also have a much clearer discussion on most of the previously nominated ones as most of the 110 club sockpuppets have been cleared out. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll nominate Annie Jennings now, as that seems like one of the most obvious ones, and see how that goes. Depending on the outcome, it may be possible to bundle some of these into groups. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There's also newly created Linda Wiggins and Maudie Wilson. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I just nominated Adelina Domingues as a control group of sorts, to see how your AfD fairs compared to a more strictly policy focused nomination launched the same day. It will help us decide how to proceed with the rest. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I feel like there is some funny business going on at the Adelina Domingues AfD. One of the Keep voters hasn't edited in nearly two years and suddenly today they start voting in AfD's and posted blatantly garbage articles as evidence of passing WP:N. They also linked to a paywalled "scholarly publication" Robert Young was an author of and a publication you have to be a student at Virginia Tech to access. I know from scouring old longevity AfD's in the past there have been accusations that the GRG funnels lists of sources (often they or GRG members were authors or quoted) to people off-wiki to then use on Wikipedia as proof of notability. Both keep voters keep talking about the vaguer WP:N and not WP:GNG as is typical in these AfD's, which just seems off. Both keep talking up garbage sources and proclaiming this crap article vaults over the notability threshold. This thread and therefore our plans for major cuts are public for any one to see and try to stop... I'm not accusing any editor of wrongdoing, but something just feels amiss even if I don't have a smoking gun to prove it. Any thoughts? Upon double checking, the AfD 10 years ago for this very person had an accusation of a list of crap sources being sent to someone, although in that particular case the GRG wasn't openly accused of being the sender. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That editor seems to have a history of extended breaks and isn't one of the GRG lackeys, and both editors probably just don't have a firm grasp of our notability policy or the way sourcing works in this topic area. If the GRG people (or a couple others who aren't GRG people but unabashed longevity/Robert Young fanboys) show up they'll probably start parroting those arguments, but I don't think these two editors themselves are suspicious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I've also nominated Goldie Steinberg to see how that goes. This is explicitly not an effort to canvas (I haven't linked to them just in case that'd look bad), only to keep track of the AfDs so we can measure outcomes and accordingly figure what to do next. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Annie Jennings was deleted, Adelina Domingues relisted for further discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I just nominated Eugénie Blanchard, Delphine Gibson, Marie-Thérèse Bardet and Maudie Wilson for deletion, with a short and clear rationale. Let's see how that goes. — JFG ^talk 00:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Of interest for reference, here is an AfD that got unanimous delete/redirect opinions, from a simple "not notable beyond longevity" argument: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Simone Capony. — JFG ^talk 00:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I just nominated Mary Josephine Ray and yesterday I PRODded Neva Morris. So far the AfDs have had almost no disruption, one stray SPA at Eugénie Blanchard but nothing else; regardless of the outcomes, to this point this is dramatically better than any previous efforts at improving this topic area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I just nominated Lucy Hannah, which is now at AfD for the fourth time. We have been having better luck with the simpler nomination reasonings, but I figured it would be better to be more policy oriented when nominating this doozy. Does anyone think it would be advantageous for me to add the following as a comment to this AfD: While the 110 club is not considered a reliable source since it is a forum, I think it is worthwhile to mention that the co-author of one of the cited books, the head of the GRG (another source used in the article), and an affiliate of GWR (the third source in the article) Robert Young, publicly claimed on that website using his official account that Lucy Hannah actually died in her 90's, not at 117. If true, this would explain the complete lack of contemporaneous media coverage of Hannah's supposed age records and why so little is known about her in general. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You should save this argument in case somebody touts her exceptional age in favor of her notability. Otherwise, better not stir the AfD pot. However, this information should be mentioned in whatever list contains her name and purported age, at least as a footnote. — JFG ^talk 03:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I just used this argument as you recommended, but I have been a stickler for using only reliable sources in actual articles, so I will leave adding a footnote to her list entries to someone else so as to avoid a guaranteed controversy. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I just nominated Linda Wiggins and Christina Cock. Once the first batch of discussions all finish running their course, it'd be good to get a table of outcomes together (I can pull together the articles, but I'm awful with table formatting so I'll leave that to someone better at such things). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your wish is my command: #AfDs of individual biographies — JFG ^talk 12:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! In a little bit I'll add Edna Parker as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, Adelina Domingues survived AfD as no consensus thanks to it being left open for several extra days, including multiple days as the only open AfD for Oct 20, which allowed last minute keep voters to show up and essentially proclaim ever being the worlds oldest person is an automatic grant of notability. It was enough to muddy the waters. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I supported deletion for lack of substance, I think keeping Domingues is a justifiable outcome, because of the broad coverage she received as the world's oldest recognized person and because of her ethnicity. Nobody would suggest removing the article on Jeanne Calment either, despite her fame being only related to her record-setting age. The articles that deserve the axe, in my opinion, are those about people who happened to be the "oldest in country X" for a period of a few months until their "successor" took over the "title". That's WP:Fancruft / WP:Indiscriminate territory, and must go. — JFG ^talk 11:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And it can be revisited after some time, once we get a better sense of what's being kept versus deleted. Agree that it was open for way too long, though, that was odd. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Consistency in redirects and categories

I cleaned up the French list, and created or updated redirects for all people who reached 113 years old. A typical redirect looks like this:

#REDIRECT [[List of French supercentenarians]]

{{R to list}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Vellard, Lydie}}
[[Category:1875 births]]
[[Category:1989 deaths]]
[[Category:French supercentenarians]]

If the person has a mini-bio in a section of the list, we can use:

#REDIRECT [[List of French supercentenarians#Marie Brémont]]

{{rcat shell|
  {{R to list}}
  {{R to section}}
}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Brémont, Marie}}
[[Category:1886 births]]
[[Category:2001 deaths]]
[[Category:French supercentenarians]]
[[Category:People from Maine-et-Loire]]

This way, we get a decently populated category of supercentenarians by country, and search lookup will work consistently for all readers that chanced upon the name of any sort of "oldest person". By current standards of super old age, people over 113 are still counted in dozens, not thousands, so this remains manageable. Most of them were already identified by a redirect or a deleted article. Legacy cases under 113 who already had a redirect are "grandfathered", i.e. added to the relevant categories. Some names have slipped off the list since they were redirected: in that case I list them up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 8. A useful tool to plan the cleanup is the redirect checker,[1] which shows in particular as "broken" the redirects to sections that no longer exist; the fix is to simply redirect to the whole list, while adding appropriate categories if they are missing. Feel free to re-use these techniques on other national lists of supercentenarians. — JFG ^talk 11:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Tane Ikai and Misao Okawa

Both of those merge and redirects were reverted. A couple months ago, the article on Tane Ikai (as well as Chiyo Miyako) were the subject of canvassed AfDs and canvassed, blatantly tendentious DRVs. Any discussion of Ikai or Miyako (though a discussion on Okawa should go smoother) is likely to attract some attention, but hopefully not the same kind as the most recent prior discussions. Just a note for those unfamiliar with the history there, those are among the few with very recent SPA tendentiousness. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I got Ikai mixed up with Nabi Tajima, but the Ikai discussion had serious SPA issues as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sent three reverted Japanese redirects to AfD. — JFG ^talk 09:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, and I agree with all of those. The other one will be Kane Tanaka. I feel like it'll be a bigger fight if I nominate it, due to my involvement in that train wreck, but I'd support anyone else's nomination. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Lede section prose and citations

I have rewritten the lede sections of the French, Italian and American lists, cutting on trivia, adding some life anecdotes, updating citations, and placing the portrait of a featured supercentenarian when there was none. These pages now feel a little more like an encyclopedia than a database, although there is certainly much more we can do. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 13:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-wrote the Japanese lede section too. — JFG ^talk 14:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Those look much better, yes. Thank you for your work on this! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

My edits to the Japanese article were reverted. You may want to comment at Talk:List of Japanese supercentenarians#Lede section rewrite. — JFG ^talk 20:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No surprise that the reverts were done by the last active member of the GRG fanclub. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I'll get an RFC together to definitively keep this nonsense out of these articles and to support your versions. We could manage all of them in one RfC, that won't be an issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are two distinct issues. An RfC could indeed address in one shot all sections listing the "oldest in country X" people over time, and establish whether we should keep or remove them. Changes to the lede sections should in my opinion be discussed on each article. So far, it is being contested only on the Japanese page, but with no reason provided besides "I only have a problem with the changes in the lede".[2]. This needs to be resolved by regular debate; please chime in. — JFG ^talk 05:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Objections to the new Japanese lede have been heard and resolved. — JFG ^talk 06:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Today I improved the lede sections of the German and Dutch lists. Note that the Dutch list is at AfD with a suggested merge to the European list: I first supported merging, but then switched to Keep after working on the article for a while, especially to improve sourcing. Only one Dutch person is currently mentioned on the European list, so there is very little overlap. Further comments welcome, as usual. — JFG ^talk 17:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maria Capovilla and Maria Gomes Valentim

I would boldly merge both of these, Maria Capovilla and Maria Gomes Valentim, as mini-bios on the List of supercentenarians by continent, if only because there are so few people from there on that list. What's holding me back is 1. I'm on a device where trying to merge anything would be way too difficult and 2. I figured a little input would be good, since this would be a pretty substantial change. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Maria Gomes Valentim should be merged to the list by continent. I feel differently about Maria Capovilla because she was once the oldest person in the world. Those tend to keep their own articles per WP:GNG due to the extra coverage. That's a keep for me. — JFG ^talk 09:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed that Valentim was also briefly the oldest person in the world. Does not mean the article should automatically be kept, but it would definitely be challenged at AfD. Given the paucity of information compared to Capovilla, I would still support a merge. — JFG ^talk 10:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gomes Valentim was an unusual and very confusing situation, to put it mildly. What you say makes sense, I could get on board with that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Supercentenarian categories

What is the view on the less plausible longevity claimants being in these categories? As an example, see the list JFG put together above, or cases such as Habib Miyan and Hillel the Elder (at the latter someone reverted my removal of the Male supercentenarian category). I would think these should only be for articles on verified supercentenarians, and these people belong in some other category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles about unverified "longevity claimants"

What shall we do with articles written about people who were once claimed as having lived beyond 120 years, but whose age could not be corroborated? Most of the coverage in those cases stems from the claim and the analysis thereof. Examples:

I would favor short mentions, in the Longevity claims article, of individual cases that received significant coverage. Delete and redirect personal articles, except Zhang Daoling who has historical significance independently of his claimed longevity. — JFG ^talk 10:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Add Father Akaki to that list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I redirected him to the List of Finnish supercentenarians per WP:NOPAGE. — JFG ^talk 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Another is Kamato Hongo. I agree, having a short mention on the relevant country/continent list or on the longevity claims article could work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Majority would come under WP:BIO1E wouldn't they? A lot of these get a brief burst of coverage that mainly consists of "person claims to be age X". Most of these articles usually go something like this: name, born, worked, got married, claims age X but isn't verified, <throw in longevity trivia here such as oldest living person is Y and ever is X, if their age was true they'd be oldest Z>, died. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I would think so. Probably the worst is the mess that populates Category:Indian supercentenarians; those articles are almost all implausible claims and need some serious culling. Zaro Aga, Javier Pereira (supercentenarian), and Slava Ivančević are up there too, as are a good chunk of the names in Category:Chinese supercentenarians; another set of eyes on these would be helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Merging list of oldest men and women

Given the strong overlap between those lists, I have suggested a three-way merge of List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women into List of the verified oldest people. Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Merge lists of men and women. — JFG ^talk 06:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

These are distinct distinctions that ought to have separate lists. (Is your interest in the coverage of longevity to contribute to it, or to reduce it?) LE (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually tried this some years ago but got serious pushback. I fully support this simplification. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of pages as belonging to this Wikiproject

For example Talk:List_of_German_supercentenarians is tagged as belonging to the defunct World's Oldest People project. Should we consider replacing all such tags with a tag for this project? Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I support making this change soon, but not quite yet so that the "house" is all in order when we move this new project in. We still have more work to do before we are ready to fully roll out this project and nuke the old one, so that the rubbish/absurdities we are taking care of were only present in the old project. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Wait until the subject matter reaches some stability. However I think there is enough indication from various AfDs and related discussions for us to start drafting general project guidelines. I would not feel at ease "taking over" articles from the old project if we repeat the former's lack of scope and inclusion criteria. — JFG ^talk 12:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

List by country

I redirected List of Belgian supercentenarians to the Europe list. None of the people are even in the oldest 50 in Europe (ignoring the world) so there is nothing to merge. If that gets reverted we can AfD it. Same for List of Norwegian supercentenarians and List of Finnish supercentenarians. Later we can seek deletion of the redirects at RFD as pointless because there are no Belgians, Finns or Norwegians on the Euro list. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For reference, please look at my tally of people on various national lists, including detailed counts of women/men, dead/living, residents/emigrants, verified/unverified, stats by age, plus links to national lists in native-language wikis. This can help us determine which lists are worth keeping, which age or count limits to apply, and find missing people documented on other wikis. — JFG ^talk 11:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

See new thread below: #National and continental lists — JFG ^talk 15:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:OUT suggestion

Given that there have been a lot of AFDs associated with old people, I would personally suggest having the Gerontology Wikia added to WP:OUT with respect to supercentenarian biographies. Further, the licences for WIkia and Wikipedia are compatible, so we should have no problem with copying the articles from Wikipedia to the Wikia. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

AfDs of non-supercentenarian individual biographies

Here is a list of articles about non-supercentenarian subjects lacking independent notability beyond their age. Barring article improvement, most of them should be deleted or redirected.

Name	Country	Lifespan	AfD date + link	Outcome
Marjorie Newell Robb	United States (Iceberg!)	1889–1992	22 November 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Mary Davies Wilburn	United Kingdom (Iceberg!)	1883–1987	1 December 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Winnifred Quick	United Kingdom/United states (Iceberg!)	1904–2002	1 December 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Sid Daniels	United Kingdom (Iceberg!)	1893–1983	4 December 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Ruth Becker	United States (Iceberg!)	1899–1990	4 December 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Alden Caldwell	United States (Iceberg!)	1911–1992	4 December 2018	N Deleted

Discussion

Category:RMS_Titanic's_crew_and_passengers and Category:RMS Titanic survivors as well as Category:American centenarians are good places to look. Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really related to this project. My take is that all Titanic survivors who are not otherwise notable (BLP1E) should be merged into a single page, possibly Passengers of the RMS Titanic#Last passenger survivors to die (how creepy is that section title!), with a line or two about their individual circumstances. Detailed biograhpical tidbits belong indeed on Titanipedia. — JFG ^talk 12:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

One of the above articles is part of the old project (how I found this mess - it was in the project AfD list) and one of the participants in our AfD's has talked about these as well. The above are part of a set of articles created to illuminate the "Oldest living survivor of the RMS Titanic" over time or are oldster "Last remaining survivors of the RMS Titanic disaster" which does clearly fall under the topic of "longevity". Notice any familiar themes? It's also unwise to leave such rot to fester so near our main focus, supercentenarians, because people are finding their way between there and our main focus. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is predominantly an issue with various military conflicts—it's a huge problem on pages such as List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War—and there is some definite overlap. Setting criteria for such things is another situation in its own right (with the military vets some people at WP:MILHIST could possibly help), but one within the purview of this project. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That is fancruft "Last survivor who was a teenager at the time of the sinking." "Last survived who was Canadian" "first survivor to die" good grief it is worse than GRG but at least this titanic stuff has a finite universe of bios.

We are making such progress on cleanup of supercenturians I'd hate to attract titanic fan interest that would start voting to keep super pages. Since the lists exist, we could start redirecting citing WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Since some editors have concerns about the impact this section could have on our supercentenarian clean up efforts, I will refrain from adding any more AfD's here for the time being, until we are at a more complete stage with the supers effort. It really would suck as Legacypac said if Titanic fans started voting in super AfD's in an effort to keep their own cruft pages. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that I have suggested that all the articles be redirected to Passengers of the RMS Titanic since they are not known for anything outside of surviving the Titanic. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Basic issues that this project needs to attempt to resolve

(In the following the term "validated" refers to age determination by organisation such as, but not limited to, the GRG; "verified" means reported by any source which satisfies WP:RS)

The subject of human longevity differs from most other human-related Wiki topics in that it relies on far more subjectivity than objectivity. While many longevity fans treat it is a contest similar to sporting events it is most certainly not. Since its inception on Wikipedia longevity has suffered under multiple issues including: WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. As such there are multiple issues which need addressing if this Project is to bring the subject to a more acceptable standard for Wikipedia purposes.

"Verifiability not truth"

It is, at present, impossible to determine any (exceptionally old) person's age to within 1 day by scientific analysis. Even if there were such a method it would need to be applied to every person on the planet to be able to say with 100% certainty that anyone is/was the world's oldest living/ever person. Therefore any statement to the effect that "This person is the world's oldest living person" is false. The statement needs to be something to the effect that "This person is the oldest known person whose age has been determined by documentary evidence". That still leaves the issue of who determines this, especially for living people. The RFCs here and here determined that there be no differentiation between Reliable Sources, more specifically that there be no differentiation between persons validated by the GRG and others cited in Reliable Sources. This initially applied specifically only to that article (with some later clarification) but has since been applied to some, but not all, similar lists in various country/region articles.

Should there be no differentiation between Reliable Sources across all Longevity-related articles?
With reference to deceased persons, should there be an upper limit of credibility, if so what should that limit be?
With reference to living persons, should there be an upper limit of credibility, if so what should that limit be?

I believe there should be no differentiation between Reliable Sources across all Longevity-related articles, except when it comes to determining the worlds oldest person/man, as long as what constitutes a reliable source is tightly controlled. With reference to deceased and living persons, I believe there should be an upper limit for inclusion of age 114 for all claims that do not have backing by an international body, such as Guinness or the GRG. At age 115+ random birthday media coverage just doesn't cut it as a reliable source for a persons age. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The World's Oldest Ever person

There is common agreement that Jeanne Calment is the oldest known person whose age has been validated.

Should Jeanne Calment continue to be the upper limit of oldest known verified people, or should there be a higher limit (or none) and all cases that pass RS be treated equally?

Yes, Jeanne Calment should continue to be the upper limit of oldest known validated women and Jiroemon Kimura should be the upper limit of oldest known validated men (unless a future internationally validated person surpasses them). Newshunter12 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely, that's a reasonable standard to weed out most unlikely longevity claims. — JFG ^talk 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, in absence of any new scientific data saying otherwise. schetm (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The World's Oldest Living Person

The Afds here and here glossed over an important point; who determines the WOP (and World's Oldest Man if different)? This has, since, 1955, been determined by announcements by Guinness (and the ceremonial presentation of certificates where possible). This process has been muddied somewhat by Guinness using the GRG for its age validations since (? approx 2000). The result has been that when the WOP dies news outlets report the next WOP as whoever is next on the GRG's published list. It has also been the habit of longevity-fan Wiki editors to proclaim the next WOP before/without the existence of any RS report, thus violating BLP. A further issue is that the GRG is not as reliable, and certainly not as infallible, as many of its supporters like to think. There are numerous cases of validation being withdrawn, at least one long-standing questionable case being reclassified as validated (and not questioned), a case where another case was found to be older than the announced WOP, and a case where the GRG insisted a person had died when there relative insisted on Wikipedia that they were still alive. With the death of its founder the GRG appears to be operating on a reduced budget (they only list new people once they are past their 112th birthday, not their 110th) and this may be part of the recent problems. I for one feel that this impacts significantly on the reliability of the GRG v other RS on this issue in particular.

Who (i.e. which RS) determines the World's Oldest Person?
What should the upper limit be (if any) for credible WOP claims (i.e. if the Guinness WOP is not be given preferential status over other RS)?

Since they have used the GRG for many years and with the GRG's declining reliability as a source, it's not perfect, but Guinness should still be the definitive word on who the World's Oldest Person and World's Oldest Man are. While many in the media and longevity fans just look at who is the new person at the top of the GRG's list to decide these titles, Guinness takes its time to make these determinations. As of April 10th, Guinness has not announced a new WOP since Violet Brown died in September 2017. Clearly, they don't just take who makes the GRG's list at face value. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The current source guidelines on this very wikiproject count the GRG as a reliable source. Do you have any quantifiable reasons to doubt its reliability? schetm (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Biographies

The Afds for Chiyo Miyako and Kane Tanaka highlight a long-standing issue with longevity biographies. In the past many longevity fans created articles for many supercentenarians on the flimsiest basis. Many have since been deleted on the basis of failing WP:GNG, and a few redirected/merged to country list articles as mini-bios. The arguments for Miyako and Tanaka fell largely into the following camps:

"The world's oldest person is clearly notable and there is no question that an article is justified (irrelevant of content)."

"The world's oldest person is clearly notable and there is enough content to justify an article."

"The world's oldest person is notable but there is not enough content to justify a stand-alone article, however a redirect and merge to a mini-bio in List of Japanese supercentenarians is justified."

"Insufficient content in the current article to justify its retention or even reconstitute as a mini-bio in List of Japanese supercentenarians, a simple redirect will suffice."

It is unfortunate that in both the Miyako and Tanaka cases that the original Afd result to delete (or merge/redirect) was challenged and 1 (so far) overturned to "No consensus" (and the article restored). This indicates that determining a notability guidelines for biographies will be more difficult, even a consensus here may not be accepted by the wider Wiki community. If there is a clear consensus on 3 above then it may be possible to get something included in WP:BIO.

Is there any minimum criteria that could/should be used in determining whether a longevity related biography is automatically notable (e.g. Guinness's WOP)?
Is there any minimum criteria that could/should be used in determining whether a longevity related mini-biography in a Country List (e.g. List of Japanese supercentenarians#People is automatically notable (e.g. Guinness's WOP)?

I believe that the minimum criteria used in determining whether a longevity related biography is automatically notable should be whether that individual is currently in the top 5 oldest people/men ever and if their is sufficient truly encyclopedic information to include in such an article, beyond table info. I believe that the minimum criteria used in determining whether a longevity related mini-biography in a country list is automatically notable should be is that person currently one of the five oldest people/the oldest man from that country, did they live to an exceptional age (say 115+) and is there sufficient encyclopedic information to include in such a mini-bio, beyond table info. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea^. The article on Lucy Hannah is going to be an issue. She's top 4 oldest of all time and lived to 117, but her article tells us absolutely nothing about her. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A good majority of the WP:PERMASTUBs were deleted/redirected back in 2015, but there's still a few out there. If all we can say about someone is the absolute basic life details of name, born, married, worked and died then we don't need an article and they can easily be handled on a list. Pretty much any permastub that repeats table info should be redirected to their appropriate list. A few of the mini-bios need clearing out (Look at the top two names here for example) if they restate table info. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Those cleaning out minibios should check to see whether or not there's been a AfD which spurred the creation of the minibio in the first place. If so, the minibio shouldn't be removed without some form of discussion, as such an action would effectively be overturning consensus at an AfD. schetm (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Listcruft

Despite the fact that many have been removed there are still considerable number of "List of supercentenarian" articles, and lists within other articles which are of dubious encyclopedic merit. Many of these would appear to fail WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH etc. If it is taken into account that most lists are based on lists by the GRG, and given that the GRG is neither an exhaustive list of such people or the only RS for the same and that many lists are unlikely to be of interest to anyone but longevity fans which, if any, should be retained.

Are any lists by area (i.e. continent) notable (with the possible/probable exception of List of European supercentenarians)?
Should there be a criteria for which country lists of surpercentenarians (e.g. minimum/maximum numbers, coverage, upper age limit)?
Which RS should be used for such lists?
Are "chronological list of oldest person" type lists justifiable (since most are OR)?

The only list by area that is notable and should be kept is the List of European supercentenarians. The others primarily just duplicate non-notable individuals from other lists. Criteria for which country lists of supercentenarians exist or how they operate should be a minimum of 15 individuals and a maximum of 30 per country, a minimum age of 113 (since there have been countless thousands of supercentenarians - just being one is not notable), no lists of emigrants from a country, and a Jeanne Calment/Jiroemon Kimura standard upper age limit. All RS should be equal on country lists, with no preference given to GRG validated people. Chronological list of oldest person type lists are not justifiable since they are primarily OR and give the very harmful to this project impression that longevity is some kind of contest or office that is held.

It can't be overstated how many problems in the existing project could be reduced or eliminated by eliminating listcruft. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with above. All continent articles (bar Europe) either all fail WP:LISTN as no sources discuss those particular tables or they duplicate already existing information better handled in other lists. Not even the GRG seem to be interested in supercentenarians by continent as nowhere on their site do they have supercentenarians from Africa, South America, Asia, etc. The only references for the Africa list for example are GRG tables such as "supercentenarians who died in 20XX" and "supercentenarians from <COUNTRY>", nothing about continents. If no sources isn't enough, they're also totally redundant. Just look at the Asian one before I restored the redirect. It had a total of THREE names out of fifty (one of the immigrants is from Japan) that weren't already on the Japanese list. Oceania has 6 out of 43 names that aren't on the Australian list. Most of the African ones are on the French list. And apparently Africa and South America have no living supercentenarians.

Happy supporting the removal the chronological list sections too. Like above, most of the references are from the GRG tables such as the "supercentenarians from <country>" tables which (fun fact) have not been updated in over ten years. The best one being the Japan one which is from 2001... CommanderLinx (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@CommanderLinx, @The Blade of the Northern Lights, @DerbyCountyinNZ I recently nominated the Africa article for deletion and all the continent level lists were merged into one grand list; in theory it should be easier to get rid of them in one fell swoop now if someone wants to AfD it, but I fear a keepist swarm would try to muck it up like other recent AfD's. Precedent that this crap article passes policy would be bad. Only the European section doesn't utterly fail WP:LISTN (not to mention the redundancy issues all the lists have) and that passable section of content shouldn't protect all the continent level lists. Do any of you believe that the grand list should face AfD? Newshunter12 (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree the continent articles should be deleted. The group merge only confirms WP:LISTN as there is a massive lack of sources. The only source being GRG tables that don't actually mention continents on their site. If LISTN isn't enough they're all redundant and duplicate other lists (Especially Asia and Oceania). I don't mind either way what happens with a Europe list. I think it is notable but it is also redundant given that every name comes from the country lists. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Already said this down below, but for discussion continuity: I just deleted all five country specific Chronological list of oldest person sections because they were each a WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:SYNTHESIS of original research. Hopefully there won't be a revert battle over them since they do not pass policy despite being on these pages for ages. The five countries were: America, UK, Japan, Italy, and France. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

American list

I have done some cleanup on the list of American supercentenarians, and renamed it for consistency with other nationalities. Outdated GRG sources from 2007 were replaced with 2015 and 2018 versions. Citations from newspapers were improved; some redundant ones were removed. Lede section was rewritten towards clarity. Hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 01:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Question: Should we keep the tedious chronology of the oldest American living person since 1955, or can we just point to the global list of same, at the world's oldest people article? This section looks a tad WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. — JFG ^talk 01:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If we even have to have those chronologies at all, keeping them on the global list makes the most sense. Yes, to me it seems impressively indiscriminate (though I think this, from years ago, is hard to top). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Combined age of twins, in days"!? We could make a song out of this… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG ^talk 03:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we should delete all the country specific chronologies of oldest residents because not only are they WP:INDISCRIMINATE, they are each a WP:SYNTHESIS of original research. Good work on the American page, JFG. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I just deleted all five country specific Chronological list of oldest person sections because they were each a WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:SYNTHESIS of original research. Hopefully there won't be a revert battle over them since they do not pass policy despite being on these pages for ages. The five countries were: America, UK, Japan, Italy, and France. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; it makes those lists easier to read. — JFG ^talk 13:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

My edits were reverted on the List of French supercentenarians and List of Japanese supercentenarians articles. Discussions about deleting these sections are ongoing on each of the articles' talk pages if anyone wanted to comment. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I know why 1955 is the start - the first year the Guinness Book of World Records was published creating a source to follow. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussions of interest to this project

Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I just want to let everyone else know my talk page was vandalized Dec 2 by an editor, as their only edit. They were swiftly indef blocked and the comment was struck so I can't see what it was, but it was almost certainly retaliation for my work trying to help clean up the mess longevity fans created on Wikipedia. I'm not saying it was by Waenceslaus, but coupled with their recent troubled return it seems the longevity fanboys are striking back at us. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You got some fan mail too, huh? And here I thought I was the only one (I can see what you got, it was some especially nasty vandalism; much worse than the one from my secret admirer). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Glad I'm not alone and thanks for the info about my fan mail. The edit was only 10 min before the edit sent your way, so might be same person. Given their chosen username, I am curious if the vandalism involved a threat of violence? Newshunter12 (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

They caught and indefed my fan 1! It was a person who had been throwing wrenches into our AfD's for the past three months. Christmas came early this year! Newshunter12 (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

They really are pretty pathetic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, a few CfDs here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Some more CfDs here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
More CfDs here and a couple RfDs here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I added several cats Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7 Legacypac (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have a look. Rzvas (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Bernice Madigan was sent to DRV here after being closed as redirect. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

New article or section proposal - the widespread issues surrounding extreme longevity

JFG's find of the study that casts heavy doubt on Jeanne Calment's age got me thinking. We don't really have a page or section that properly explains the pitfalls of validating claims in this topic area (Longevity Claims only partly does this) and a breakdown of some high profile cases of fraud or administrative screw-ups like Carrie White, Kamato Hongo, and Shigechiyo Izumi. I'm not talking about creating another list, but it does seem to be a gap in our coverage to not describe the know issues of this topic area and that there have been widespread age fantasies around certain people that get magnified in media echo chambers. Readers ought to be made aware that this topic is a bit like reality TV; its only semi-real. If Jeanne Calment does go down as a fraud, then for nearly 10 years a pathological liar was held up by the media and the experts as the worlds oldest person and for over 20 years after she died as the oldest person ever. This could do very serious damage to reader faith in this project, so it would be wise to get ahead of the issue before Jeanne Calment potentially goes down as just another fraud. We might also mention the mess in Japan about 8 years ago surrounding dead or missing extremely old people that caused major government reforms and the millions of people age 112+ in the U.S. with active SS numbers and the widespread effects that has. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I would fully support the creation of such an article. There are plenty of sources to draw from, because cases that were first heralded in the press, then exposed as fraud, are well covered. This was indeed one of my first questions when I started editing in this subject area: what are these famous "modern validation standards" that every page talks about but no page defines? It's hard to find sources that don't contradict themselves, as "tracking of oldest people" is very much a cottage industry. The fact that Jeanne Calment's case is still widely considered the gold standard of validation may soon become said industry's "Hitler diaries" moment. In Calment's case, the abundance of credible administrative reports across decades made her validation "rock-solid", however the scenario described with her daughter faking her own death would be fully compatible with all the evidence collected. Census bureau officials would not even need to be involved in the deception, as they faithfully recorded what the interviewed people told them, creating more and more "proofs of life" for Jeanne. — JFG ^talk 15:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

As a start, such an article might include:

Media attention and debunking of the Carrie White, Kamato Hongo, and Shigechiyo Izumi cases. Explain fickleness of attained "records".
Sogen Kato/Fusa Furuya spark Japans oldster crises and government reforms (pension, healthcare, koseki system, changing culture)
6.5 million Americans 112+ have active SS numbers (billions in income still being reported, undocumented immigrant identity fraud, worlds oldest living man's age was used as search benchmark)

More broadly put, many crimes/bureaucratic failings only come to light when individuals supposedly reach extreme ages

Maria Gomes Valentim declared worlds oldest after somebody younger had been given the title
Requiring one early-life, one mid-life, and one late-life document is cornerstone of modern scientific age validation
Lack of data or documentation from China, India, Africa, etc.
Leave room for Jeanne Calment's age debunking and longevity field repercussions if it comes to pass. Even now, the study already shows that NO case is above future scrutiny and doubt. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I did some poking around at 110club. Interesting stuff. Some of them live in the delusion that "verified" is meaningful and anyone that questions "verified" is wrong. Someone posted lists from 10 years ago showing little change in the top 10 names, but inadvertaantly revealing other debunked claims that were "verified". The whole area is filled with speculation and conjecture. Proposed title Reliability of longevity claims ? Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Funny, but tragically true at the same time. Verified sure doesn't mean what it ought to mean in this subject area, and the GRG's track record is exceedingly poor with the top 10. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Reliability of longevity verification would be more focussed. Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Too convoluted for a title. I would suggest simply Verification of supercentenarians. Once this exists, all our supercentenarian articles mentioning verification issues could simply point there. "Longevity" alone can mean too many things, including lots that have nothing to do with human longevity and claims of old age. — JFG ^talk 21:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The title Verification of supercentenarians sounds good to me for the reasons you stated. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Even more focused. I like it. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Verification is all about checking documents since you can't cut someone open and count tree rings. There are many reasons why documents can be wrong or missing. Cases of fraud can be hard to detect. Stepping into someone else's identity (especially when the other person is a dead family member) is especially hard to detect. Gaining early retirement benefits appears to be a common reason to lie about age, as does vanity, avoiding the draft, etc. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Places with some ideas: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carrie_C._White, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We should start with a draft. What title should we give it? My suggestion is "Controversies surrounding longevity claims". FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Katherine Plunket say "She was included in the first ever Guinness World Records (published in 1955), and is the only supercentenarian listed then to stand the burden of scrutiny in the years since.[9]" though the cite does not say that, that I can see, it is a tantalizing statement for this topic. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft Started I've started Draft:Verification of supercentenarians so anyome with ideas can work on it. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've also noticed that many WP articles about supposed supercentenarians have accepted implausible accounts of extreme old age with very little skepticism. Some examples include Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolas_Savin (kept, but still crap), and Hazrat_Babajan. Reyk _YO! 09:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

- The excruciatingly terrible, and obviously false, article about Habib Miyan is another example of the longevity enthusiasts gushing over dubious accounts of extreme old age. Reyk _YO! 15:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found, going through the longevity claims and longevity myths articles, that all too often there are one of two problems; the first, which you explain well, is an unwarranted degree of credulity, and the second is that the article is a coatrack for plugging the GRG and/or spokesmen thereof (see Luo Meizhen as an example). Those are almost all the articles in those categories I've sent to AfD during this month (see the table above). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the draft, as it stands, on the talk page regarding whether or not this topic is encyclopedic. I invite response from interested parties. schetm (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible off Wiki canvassing

Just a heads up that a few brand new accounts have been popping up in a few AFDs to vote keep. Either someone is sockpuppetting to get around a topic ban or indefinite block or there is canvassing going on off Wiki somewhere again. Just in case these SPAs disrupt AFDs to try and keep an eye out for them. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? E Eng 01:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This AFD had at least three new users who voted keep and another who hadn't edited in 6 years decided this AFD is the best time to return. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, when I responded I thought we were at ANI, not Project Longevity. Yes, we should all be on the lookout. I think we all know where this comes from. E Eng 03:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Same at the Polish AfD. Yup we know from were this comes. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why polish would be at AfD. It's found in every household with wooden furniture, stainless steel appliances, or leather shoes. E Eng 16:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

AfDs of individual biographies

Following the discussion above, here is a list of articles about supercentenarian subjects lacking independent notability beyond their age. Barring article improvement, most of them should be deleted or redirected to the appropriate lists.

Name	Country + list	Lifespan	AfD date + link	Outcome
Annie Jennings	United Kingdom	1884–1999	12 October 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted
Adelina Domingues	Cape Verde / USA	1888–2002	12 October 2018 (2nd)	Y No Consensus
Goldie Steinberg	Moldova / USA	1900–2015	15 October 2018 (2nd)	N Redirected
Maudie Wilson	New Zealand	1903–2013	21 October 2018	N Deleted
Eugénie Blanchard	France	1896–2010	21 October 2018	N Redirected
Marie-Thérèse Bardet	France	1898–2012	21 October 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted, then redirected
Delphine Gibson	United States	1903–2018	21 October 2018	N Deleted
Mary Josephine Ray	Canada / USA	1895–2010	24 October 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted
Neva Morris	United States	1895–2010	~~24 October 2018 (PROD)~~ AfD started 30 October 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Lucy Hannah	United States	1875–1993	25 October 2018 (4th!)	N Redirected
Aida Mason	United Kingdom	1895–2007	~~25 October 2018 (PROD)~~ AfD started 31 October 2018	N Deleted
Linda Wiggins	New Zealand	1908–living	28 October 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Christina Cock	Australia / women	1887–2002	28 October 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Ada Roe	United Kingdom	1858–1970	28 October 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Edna Parker	United States	1893–2008	No consensus in 2006 29 October 2018 (2nd)	Y Kept after substantial source improvement
Marcelle Narbonne	France	1898–2012	29 October 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Marie Brémont	France	1886–2001	30 October 2018 (BOLD)	Merged (diff), then restored (diff). Discussion opened. N Redirected, including picture.
Germaine Haye	France	1888–2002	30 October 2018 (BOLD)	Merged
Margaret Fish	United Kingdom	1899–2011	30 October 2018	N Redirected
Elsie Steele	United Kingdom	1899–2010	30 October 2018	N Redirected
Annie Turnbull	United Kingdom	1898–2010	30 October 2018	N Redirected
Eunice Bowman	United Kingdom	1898–2010	30 October 2018	N Deleted
Florrie Baldwin	United Kingdom	1896–2010	30 October 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted
Annie Knight	United Kingdom	1895–2006	30 October 2018	N Redirected
Emmeline Brice	United Kingdom	1895–2006	30 October 2018	N Deleted
Lucy d'Abreu	United Kingdom	1892–2005	30 October 2018 (2nd)	N Redirected
Eva Morris	United Kingdom	1885–2000	30 October 2018 (2nd)	N Redirected
Violet Wood	United Kingdom	1899–2012	30 October 2018	N Redirected
Grace Jones	United Kingdom	1899–2013	30 October 2018	N Deleted
Gladys Hooper	United Kingdom	1903–2016	30 October 2018	N Redirected
Alice Stevenson	United Kingdom	1861–1973	No consensus in 2015 (2nd) 30 October 2018 (3rd)	N Deleted
Jane Gray	UK / Australia	1901–2014	30 October 2018	N Redirected
John Mosely Turner	United Kingdom	1856–1968	Deleted in 2005 Re-created in 2006 12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Mathew Beard	United States	1870–1985	Deleted in 2007 Re-created in 2012 3 November 2018 (2nd)	N Redirected
Ethel Lang	United Kingdom	1900–2015	Kept in 2015 12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan	Puerto Rico	1889–2004	No consensus in 2015 31 October 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Eunice Sanborn	United States	1896–2011	No consensus in 2015 (2nd) 4 November 2018 (3rd)	N Deleted
Margaret Skeete	United States	1878–1994	Kept in 2010 1 November 2018 (2nd)	N Redirected
Chiyono Hasegawa	Japan	1896–2011	4 November 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Tomoji Tanabe	Japan	1895–2009	5 November 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Yasutaro Koide	Japan	1903–2016	5 November 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Merle Barwis	Canada	1900–2014	6 November 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Cora Hansen	Canada	1899–2012	6 November 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Julie Winnefred Bertrand	Canada	1891–2007	6 November 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
John Evans	United Kingdom	1877–1990	7 November 2018	N Deleted, then redirected to oldest men list
Betsy Baker	United Kingdom	1842–1955	7 November 2018 (BOLD)	Merged
Antonia Gerena Rivera	United States	1900–2015	Kept in 2015 (2nd) 7 November 2018 (3rd)	N Deleted, then redirected
Tane Ikai	Japan	1879–1995	Redirected on 8 November 2018 (reverted) AfD on 12 November (3rd)	N Deleted and redirected
Misao Okawa	Japan	1898–2015	Redirected on 8 November 2018 (reverted) AfD on 12 November (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Kama Chinen	Japan	1895–2010	Redirected on 8 November 2018 (reverted) AfD on 12 November (3rd)	N Deleted and redirected
Dina Manfredini	Italy / USA	1897–2015	10 November 2018	N Deleted, then redirected
Olive Evelyn Boar	United Kingdom	1904–2018	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Rezső Gallai	Hungary	1904–2014	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Katarina Marinič	Slovenia	1899–2010	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Rosa Rein	Switzerland	1897–2010	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Ernest Pusey	USA (off list) / men	1895–2006	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Jokichi Ikarashi	Japan / men	1902–2015	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Anna Stoehr	United States	1900–2014	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Bertha Fry	United States	1893–2007	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Chiyo Miyako	Japan	1901–2018	Deleted on 4 August, then recreated. New AfD on 12 November (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Maude Farris-Luse	United States	1887–2002	12 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Maggie Renfro	United States	1895–2010	12 November 2018	N Deleted, then redirected
Christina Karnebeek-Backs	Netherlands	1849–1959	13 November 2018	N Deleted and redirected
Corinne Dixon Taylor	United States	1893–2007	14 November 2018	N Redirected
Ella Schuler	United States	1897–2011	14 November 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted
John Ingram McMorran	United States	1889–2003	16 November 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Bernice Madigan	United States	1899–2015	16 November 2018 (2nd) DRV opened 9 December 2018	N Deleted
Miriam Schmierer	Australia	1899–2011	~~17 November 2018 (PROD)~~ AfD on 19 November	N Redirected
E. Beatrice Riley	Australia	1896–2009	17 November 2018	N Deleted
Myra Nicholson	Australia	1894–2007	18 November 2018	N Deleted
Vi Robbins	Australia	1902–2014	18 November 2018	N Deleted
Goldie Michelson	Ukraine / USA	1902–2016	19 November 2018	N Deleted
Fanny Godin	Belgium	1902–2014	19 November 2018	N Redirected
Johanna Klink	Germany	1903–2015	19 November 2018	N Redirected
Charlotte Klamroth	Germany	1903–2015	19 November 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted
Maria Redaelli	Italy	1899–2013	20 November 2018 (NOPAGE) Procedural AfD on 27 November	N Deleted and redirected
Carl Berner	Germany / USA / men	1902–2013	20 November (2nd)	N Deleted
Jack Lockett	Australia / men	1891–2002	20 November	Y Kept after substantial source improvement
Aarne Arvonen	Finland / men	1897–2009	20 November	Merged
Arturo Licata	Italy / men	1902–2014	20 November (2nd)	N Deleted
Joan Riudavets	Spain / men	1889–2004	20 November (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Salustiano Sanchez	Spain / men	1901–2013	20 November	N Deleted and redirected
James Sisnett	Barbados / men	1900–2013	20 November	N Deleted
Fred Hale	USA / men	1890–2004	20 November	N Deleted
Yukichi Chuganji	Japan / men	1889–2003	20 November (4th)	N Deleted and redirected
Sakari Momoi	Japan (off list) / men	1903–2015	20 November (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Sadayoshi Tanabe	Japan (off list) / men	1888–2000	20 November (2nd)	N Redirected
Father Akaki (Andrei Kuznetsov)	Finland	1873–1984	20 November 2018 (NOPAGE)	N Redirected
Stanley Lucas	United Kingdom (off the list, too young!)	1900–2010	20 November 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted
Yone Minagawa	Japan / women	1893–2007	20 November (2nd)	N Deleted
Maria de Jesus	Portugal / women	1893–2009	20 November	N Deleted
Soledad Mexia	Mexico / USA / women	1899–2013	20 November (2nd)	N Deleted
Dominga Velasco	Mexico / USA / women	1901–2015	20 November (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Edelgard Huber von Gersdorff	Germany	1905–2018	20 November 2018	N Redirected
Gertrude Weaver	United States	1898–2015	21 November 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Susie Gibson	United States	1890–2006	No consensus in 2016 21 November 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted
Marie-Louise Meilleur	Canada	1880–1998	Merged 21 November (BOLD) Restored 5 December Discussion opened	Merged, then restored Discussion In progress
Evelyn Kozak	United States	1899–2013	Kept in 2013 22 November 2018	N Deleted
Gertrude Baines	USA / oldest	1894–2009	25 November 2018 (2nd)	N Deleted, then redirected
Maria Gomes Valentim	Brazil	1896–2011	27 November 2018	N Deleted
Kamato Hongo	Japan / debunked	1891–2003	27 November	N Deleted
Nabi Tajima	Japan	1900–2018	27 November (2nd)	N Deleted and redirected
Sarah Knauss	United States	1880–1999	27 November (3rd)	Y No Consensus
Reg Dean	United Kingdom (off the list, too young!)	1902–2013	28 November	N Deleted
Ralph Tarrant	United Kingdom (off the list, too young!)	1903–2013	28 November	N Deleted
Frederick Butterfield	United Kingdom (off the list, too young!)	1864–1974	28 November (3rd)	N Deleted
Ethel Wood	UK / Guernsey (currently 100th on list, soon too young!)	1901–2011	28 November	N Deleted
Carrie C. White	United States / debunked	1888–1991	28 November	N Deleted
Hannah Smith (supercentenarian)	United Kingdom (off the list, too young!)	1856–1966	29 November	N Deleted
Susie Brunson	USA / unverified	18??–1994	29 November 2018 (PROD)	N Deleted
Elias Wen	China / USA / men (too young for both lists!)	1896–2007	29 November 2018	Y Kept
Lillian Cox	United States (off the list, too young!)	1907–2018	30 November 2018	N Deleted
Sum Ying Fung	China / Canada (Not on Canadian list for some reason)	1899–2011	No consensus in 2015 30 November 2018	Merged on 2 December
Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian)	United Kingdom	1887–1993	1 December 2018	Y No Consensus
Felix Simoneaux Jr.	USA / men (too young for both lists!)	1905–2016	1 December 2018 (PROD)	N Deleted
Nicholas Kao Se Tseien	China	1906–2017	Kept in 2016 2 December 2018	Y Kept after substantial source improvement
Fadilah Noor Abbe	Indonesia / Singapore	1896/7(?)–2012	2 December 2018	N Deleted
Zeenat Bi	India	????	3 December 2018	N Deleted
Huang Mulan	China	1906–2007	Kept in August 2018 3 December 2018	Y Kept after substantial source improvement
Elza Brandeisz	Hungary	1907–2018	3 December 2018	Y Kept after substantial source improvement
Helvi Mpingana Kondombolo	Namibia	1898–2008	3 December 2018 (BOLD)	N Redirected
Habib Miyan	India	????–2008	4 December 2018 (2nd(!))	Y No consensus
Sarhat Rashidova	Azerbaijan	1875?–2007	4 December 2018	N Deleted
José Coelho de Souza	Brazil	1884?–2017	4 December 2018	N Deleted
Benedykta Mackieło	Lithuania / Poland	1893–2007	4 December 2018 (2nd(!))	N Deleted
María Díaz Cortés	Spain	1892?–2009	Kept in 2015 (!), 4 December 2018	N Deleted
Sek Yi	Cambodia	1881?–2003	5 December 2018 (PROD)	N Deleted
Józef Piotrowski (organist)	Poland	1887?–2005	5 December 2018	N Deleted
Slava Ivančević	Serbia	1894?–2013	6 December 2018	N Deleted
Sahan Dosova	Kazakhstan	1879?–2009	6 December 2018	N Deleted
Antisa Khvichava	Soviet Union / Georgia	1880?–2012	7 December 2018	N Deleted
Maria do Carmo Gerônimo	Brazil	1871?–2000	7 December 2018	N Deleted
Jackson Pollock (supercentenarian)	United States	1869?–1995	7 December 2018 (PROD)	Y Kept
George Johnson (supercentenarian)	United States / men (too young for US list)	1894–2006	8 December 2018	N Deleted
Elizabeth Israel	Dominica	????–2003	8 December 2018	N Deleted
Wook Kundor	Malaysia	b. 1902?	8 December 2018	N Deleted
John Cary (valet)	United States	1729-1843	8 December 2018	Y Kept
Bir Narayan Chaudhary	Nepal	1856?–1998	9 December 2018	Y No consensus
Maria Olívia da Silva	Brazil	1880?–2010	9 December 2018	N Deleted
William Coates (longevity claimant)	United States	1889/1911?–2004	10 December 2018	Y No consensus (!)
Benito Martínez	Haiti / Cuba	1880?–2006	10 December 2018	Y Kept
Tuti Yusupova	Uzbekistan / Soviet Union	1880?–2015	14 December 2018	Y Kept

Note on redirects

When replacing an article by a redirect, please add the relevant rcat templates, such as {{R to list}}, and when applicable {{R to section}}. Also, for people who were for some time the oldest in country X, it may be appropriate to keep their categories on the redirect page, so they will still appear in relevant classifications. See for example the French Marcelle Narbonne (just to list) and Marie Brémont when she was redirected (list + mini-bio section). — JFG ^talk 13:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the practice of keeping only categories that pertain to the person's birth and death dates, and being a supercentenarian of a particular nationality. Further opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Shout-out

JFG sure deserves a shout-out for his hard work on this whole cleanup effort. Here it is: HEY, JFG! YOU'RE DOING GREAT WORK ON THIS WHOLE CLEANUP EFFORT!. E Eng 22:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And you caught me while online, editing another minefield. I suspect that Mr. Sacher-Masoch has squeezed himself among my ancestors. Ouch! — JFG ^talk 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kao Se Tseien (2nd nomination)

I don't see the relevance of the source improvement. At 175 words on the subject (not e.g. how many papacies he lived through and so on) it's still a perfect minibio candidate. E Eng 17:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I was just copy-pasting, so that's my fault. You can definitely change it, and if you find a good place to merge it I'd completely support it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habib Miyan (2nd nomination)

This AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habib Miyan (2nd nomination)) needs attention of this WikiProject. Rzvas (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Closed with no consensus. — JFG ^talk 17:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability criteria?

What are the notability criteria for this project?

Specifically, the British supercentenarian articles are each being AfDed at present, on the basis that age does not confer notability (of course, US articles are untouched). If this is the case, then should this whole project be abandoned? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The US articles will be up next, there's no bias in that respect. Goodness knows there are enough of those which need to be cleared out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

So, what are the notability criteria for any of them? There can be no progress without knowing that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

To be brief, for those who aren't/weren't notable already (c.f. Leila Denmark) it's detailed coverage of the person's life from multiple reliable sources. For instance, Emiliano Mercado del Toro is notable because he was not only a supercentenarian, people actually took an interest in him and his life and extensively documented it in multiple places. Same with Claude Choules, a lot of sources took an interest in him because he was the last surviving WWI combat veteran. The key point is that people documented their actual lives in detail beyond routine obituaries or local press coverage, and therefore leave us with more than simple rote statistics suitable for a table. (And to preempt this, the typical comparison, athletics, is highly inapt; unlike a professional sports league, there is no organization or tournament with the winner being whoever manages to fight off the Angel of Death the longest.) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur. We should abide by WP:ANYBIO notability guidelines. Merely getting very old, and being noted in "records" for that fact, does not constitute general notability of a person's life. Besides, there may be a WP:BLP angle whereas these people and their relatives may not be thrilled with the publicity and "eternity" conferred on them by a Wikipedia article. To Andy Dingley's point, I believe we should draft a set of notability criteria as part of this rejuvenated WP:LONGEVITY project, and get consensus on them. The outcomes of the recent wave of AfDs will help cement that consensus. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, I find it very strange that you say that the notability criteria for supercentenarians are "detailed coverage of the person's life from multiple reliable sources." You said in the AfD for Chiyo Miyako "part of the idea of these AfDs is trying to figure out what the criteria are". The point I was trying to make in that AfD was that it is not possible to do enough research on each individual when AfDs of supercentenarians are being posted at the rate of 16 a day! You (and other "delete" voters) seem more interested in getting rid of these articles than in actually trying to consider criteria for notability, or whether individuals meet them. The comment by the closer there was that, with one exception, 'the "keep" opinions amount to "notable because the oldest".' It seems to me that invariably, the "delete" opinions amount to "not notable because the oldest". I do not see any evidence of WP:BEFORE research from the nominators or the (same every time) delete voters, who comment just on the quality of the article and the sourcing in it. That is not how AfD discussions are meant to be! Also, I fail to see how articles about supercentenarians can be "overt self-promotion" - the subjects are all dead! And they did not write about themselves, others wrote about them. I will probably give up on trying to consider AfDs for supercentenarians, as the rate at which they are being posted makes it impossible to do other than a knee-jerk vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen: Thanks for your comments. As I have nominated many articles for deletion, I would like to address your concerns. Most of the articles affected were WP:PERMASTUBs, i.e. had no chance of being expanded, simply because after a person reaches "oldest in place X" status, coverage of their life dwindles to a halt, as there is usually nothing of note to document besides celebrating their advanced age. A large part of article contents was dedicated to trivia about various "longevity records" and their recordholders; for example one person was listed as notable because her two sisters also lived past 100, so that their "combined age" was over 300 years. Becoming the "oldest person in place X between dates A and B" is purely a chance event, which is adequately covered by our various tables of oldest people by country and globally. I am totally in favor of keeping articles which have some substance about a person's life and deeds; we have for example well-sourced articles about Henry Allingham, Margaret Ann Neve and Shivakumara Swami. For some people with limited notability that nevertheless goes beyond "was born, worked, married, had children, got very old and died", a mini-bio in the relevant national list is often a good solution, e.g. Camille Loiseau and Venere Pizzinato-Papo. Finally, redirects to lists are useful to inform readers searching for a particular person, and I have added birth, death and "supercentenarian by nationality" categories to such redirects. — JFG ^talk 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It does not really address my concerns at all - especially the rate at which the AfDs are being posted. It just confirms me in thinking that there is no point in participating in these AfDs, I may as well put my energies elsewhere and let you just delete all these articles regardless of whether the subjects are notable or not. Most of the "delete" arguments are based on the quality of the existing article and references, and not what sources and information could be added. It does not help that most of the "keep" articles are not based on evidence, but reading the exact same wording for "delete" votes on every AfD does not inspire confidence that any thought has been put into them at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the same wording is used because the same situation arises for so many of those articles. A person reaches an exceptionally old age, she gets noticed by local newspapers, perhaps by longevity trackers, then becomes "oldest in region" or "oldest in country", even sometimes "oldest in the world". This lasts a few days at worst, a few years at best, until her death. A flurry of articles mourn her passing, and then she fades back into obscurity. Wikipedians create an article based on the few sources available, which invariably note the person's "longevity tips", such as eating healthy and believing in God. Well, that's all there is to it, really. Wikipedia is not meant as a directory of old people, nor as hagiography of persons who just happened to be alive during some historical events that articles try to connect them to. We do not maintain hundreds of articles about the tallest people, the longest cancer survivors, or the people with most hair. At best, we have lists, and articles about a few especially well-covered cases. That's plenty enough. — JFG ^talk 15:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The rate of them has to do with the enormous number of these pages. The issue dates back to 2006-2007, when the Gerontology Research Group used Wikipedia as a dumping ground for their output and vehicle for promoting themselves. This is reflected in the name of the old WikiProject for this subject (see following link), and both the head of the GRG and a very large, vociferous group of his followers obstructed any effort at outside intervention. This resulted in an arbitration case, which the longevity SPAs summarily ignored. Over the last several years they've mostly left or been banned (or both), but there are still a few and their extreme views in the interim irretrievably disrupted a huge number of these discussions. This lead us to where we are today, now that most of the conflict of interest SPAs are gone these needed another round. But before trying to set a specific guideline, I thought starting with the existing general notability guideline and the guidelines on when to write a page versus WP:NOPAGE and trying to work out trends would help; that way it could be descriptive instead of prescriptive, and the latter opens itself up to more noise from the SPAs about "persecution" or such (the rhetoric gets extremely overheated even here, on their off-wiki hangouts it's completely insane). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Could the guideline at WP:NGRIDIRON, which presumes notability if an athlete has played in a "top-level professional league" be of some help? Perhaps notability could be presumed if someone is recognized in RS a holder of the oldest living person title, or the oldest living ever from a specific nation. If the bare minimum included in a biography is birthdate, deathdate, and age, the subject could be included in a list per WP:NOPAGE, but I have concerns about merging into a minibio on a larger page due to WP:PAGELENGTH guidelines and a lack of protection from nuking minibios against consensus arrived at in AfD, which has happened on the American page. schetm (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Unlike football players who can easily be confirmed as playing for a particular team, being the oldest in X place is hard to verify. The identification rests on the inability to find someone older (did they look hard enough?) and the credibility of the claim (did they look critically enough at the claim). Many Oldest in X (including the world) claims have been proven false for both problems. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, specifically these sources, to verify age and records for human longevity. These sources, specifically the GRG, have been accepted by RSN as reliable, and to say they aren't would probably require reopening a case there. As such, if the GRG says someone is the oldest living person, then, for the purposes of Wikipedia, they are, absent any evidence to the contrary. To state otherwise would be in violation of consensus at RSN and our policies on original research - i.e. person x isn't the oldest according to Guinnes or the GRG, despite those RS saying she is because... I said so.

Of course, a RFC could be opened to determine whether the topic of oldest people is inherently verifiable or not. That would also have the benefit of shining a brighter light onto this topic. I would not be opposed to this option. schetm (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been several RSN discussions about different parts of the GRG, and it's a bit complicated. Certain tables are less reliable than others (e.g. Table EE is not reliable), and there have been a couple instances where the GRG incorrectly reported someone as dead (one in particular ended up spilling over onto Wikipedia). I can get links if you need, they're in the RSN archives. So yes, they are a good source, but not to be treated (as was the case when the GRG people were running amok in this topic) as the perfect nor the only source. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the nature of Wikipedia. We don't do original research. So, if our sources are wrong, our articles are incorrect. But that's true of every article on this site, not just longevity ones. However, when the GRG names someone oldest person, there's no shortage of stories and interviews which follow. So, for the incumbent oldest person in the world, there's almost certainly enough there to pass the GNG and NBIO. That's where it becomes analogous to NGRIDIRON, a guideline which assumes SIGCOV due to the nature, visibility, and notoriety of the person in question. schetm (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

In general, yes. But we can't be so cavalier and refuse to budge when (to cite a not-so-hypothetical situation) we have family members contacting us to say that, contrary to the GRG, someone is still alive. And I addressed the sports analogy above; unlike football this is not a competition to stave off the Angel of Death, so it doesn't inherently mean anyone outside a very narrow range of interest will cover someone. GRG validation helps, for sure, and should be used as evidence for authenticity, but there has to be more than just that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The sports notability guidelines are about sources, and NGRIDIRON speaks specifically to play at a "top-level professional league", which almost always goes hand in hand with SIGCOV in RS. A person who lives to be the oldest in the world at any specific time is analogous to an NFL player, as SIGCOV goes hand in hand with being the oldest living. It's when you get far down the oldest living list, where SIGCOV is spotty at best, that the problem you raise arises, and I would agree that folks like that aren't to be presumed notable. But people like Kane Tanaka, Edna Parker, or other people recognized to be the oldest always have a plethora of coverage, and there is also massive coverage when they die. That's why I assert that those who have been recognized to be the oldest living person at any period of time are to be presumed notable, based on the SIGCOV that comes with their status, and this project's notability guideline should recognize that. schetm (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Speak specifically to WP:PAGEDECIDE

PAGEDECIDE (aka NOPAGE) mentions that Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. I think someone like this should be part of the current effort. E Eng 16:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)