Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 27 February 2011

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians

This page needs deletion for multiple reasons. The big red disclaimer on top is a dead giveaway. Also WP:CRYSTAL. Also many of the people on this list are there with no source at all or with only a Yahoo! group as a source. Also, please read this discussion. Also, the link at the bottom is to an even worse page, in user space. It ought to go too, but first things first. Without THIS page, THAT page becomes less problematic. A project subpage is more likely to mislead the unwary than a user subpage. And asking to delete an editor's subpage is likely to be more disruptive than trying to delete a project subpage, especially where two editors from the project who tend to disagree both agree on the topic. David in DC (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Userfy. bd2412 T 01:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• David in DC, since I'm still learning about Misplaced Pages, I personally was not aware of the word "MfD" so I looked it up. To quote WP:MFD, it says, "Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

WikiProjects and their subpages: It is usually preferable to either mark the Project as inactive or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable." I don't know if you are trying to mark the entire project undesirable, are you? If not, then it suggests that your bold attempt is detrimental in following the guidelines set forth in WP:MFD. As a matter of fact, this WP:MFD should be removed, or however this works. Rest assured, I will check on this.

Yes, as I have told you only yesterday morning , I will assist other editors to make sure that as many people as possible that are listed are properly cited. Regarding WP:CRYSTAL, we do not presume either way: whether someone is still living or has died without fanfare. That may be why the big red disclaimer is on the top (I haven't checked to see who put it there) -- it is just to remind editors not to move living supercentenarians into the list of living supercentenarians until there has been a citation of them reaching their 110th birthday per known policy.

Even if statistics show that a 110-year-old supercentenarian only has about a 50% chance to live to his/her next birthday, other than providing a citation of the person's existence no matter how old the citation is, we cannot assume that the person is still living or has died without fanfare. That is not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL as we are not talking about a future event that has not actually occurred. I myself learned this in the past year when I was surprised to see an American case of someone who was last noted at age of 107 finally re-appearing in the media as she approached her 113rd birthday, I believe. Outside Wikipeida, I had questioned whether this person was still living, but it made me learn that not every person is in the media every year. That, however, does not detract from the fact that they are still notable for reaching supercentenarian status.

Finally, to better understand your position, David in DC, what is your vested interest in this WikiProject? I don't believe I have observed you providing any material content to the Project other than making note of pages that need to be improved and/or stating that they are not on par with Misplaced Pages guidelines? CalvinTy 02:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would like to know the answer to that question.

Question for David in DC: What constructive activity have you contributed to this project as distinct from destructive activity?

Specifically, which names have you added to the list that fit your criteria? Which persons have you researched? Who have you verified that fits Misplaced Pages policy?

What academic or practical qualifications do you have in the field of human longevity? Would you please provide examples of any research that you have conducted in this area?

In short, can you show demonstratively any expertise or knowledge you have on the subject? Cam46136 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

• Keep - It is a WikiProject issue and doing an end run around that project's consensus mechanism to delete one of its subpages would harm that WikiProject. The WikiProject page has been around since 10 April 2010. Also,the Arbcom case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity just closed on 17 February 2011 and Arbcom didn't seem to have a problem with the page. With the close of the recent Arbcom case, it is more important to let that Wikiproject work on its consensus developing mechanism than to use the heavy hand of MfD in an attempt to force it into one direction or another. Moreover, deleting the page will not set policy for the WikiProject and that WikiProject still will be able to keep track of people whom are potential future supercentenarians. The page seems to be a useful tool for that project. The page is in Misplaced Pages space, not article space, and I don't see any valid reason presented to delete it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Further on my post above, ArbCom held on 17 February 2011, "WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Misplaced Pages editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and community norms." How would deleting this project page further that goal? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikiprojects do not set their own rules to determine which of their subpages can and cannot be deleted. They have to play by the same rules as Misplaced Pages as a whole. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not an article. It's a WikiProject page. It helps the WikiProject so we know what to look for in the news and sources. The project aims to continue to list all sourced supercentenarians. If someone has a 109th birthday, they are not yet a supercentenarian. But, with them on a list, as their 110th birthday approaches, we know what to look for in the news and find sources for a 110th birthday. Either that or that person goes unnoticed until they announce their 112th birthday or something. Deleting the subpage would harm the project. -— AMK152 05:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• 'Keep - I know that there is dispute over whether reaching 110 years of age confers automatic notability, but that is not a dispute for this discussion. And certainly at least some of these very old people will be notable simply through weight of sources. It's quite reasonable for a Wikiproject to maintain non-mainspace pages to help keep track of and organize material like this. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Replies My answer to Calvin (and Cam) about what I've done on Misplaced Pages can be found here. I replied when Calvin asked. Cam, if your questions are not rhetorical, you should look there. As to looking for advice about improving the project, I started this thread more than a week ago. As to discussion within the project about this, please see here. As to an "end run", this is actually the opposite. Everyone who's commented there thinks this page should be dealt with. But rather than just get rid of it, per the three out of four editors who bothered to discuss it, I brought it here to seek input from experienced Misplaced Pages editors. As to project pages, the rules apply to project pages, too. As to the guidance about what's "usually preferable," this project page is as unusual as all get-out. But reading everything above, I'm now convinced that bd2412 has the proper answer. Userfy. Calvin, Cam, Reyk, AMK, any volunteers? I note that AMK already hosts a similar subpage about the youngsters among centenarians. It seems to me that this page is almost the same as that one, except for the relative youth of its subjects. They belong together. David in DC (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I am a project member and think it should be deleted. If the consensus on the project is that it should go, then what do regulars here think? Is there any reason it should stay? Is there any problem with David's suggestion to userfy? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• If there is clear agreement in the WikiProject World's Oldest People project that the subpage should be deleted, then post a request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard for an uninvolved administrator to close the project discussion about the Future supercentenarians subpage using {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} archival templates. That would be a much better approach than MfD and that should have been tried first. If there is an impass at the WikiProject as to whether to keep or delete the subpage, then post at MfD. If there is disagreement with an admin closed discussion on the WikiProject talk page, that could be raised at WP:DRV. It does not make any sense for non-involved editors here at MfD to force a WikiProject to keep a subpage for which the project consensus itself concludes it has no use. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• It appears to date that there is no clear consensus to delete this particular subpage of the WikiProject. I show that only two has indicated "delete" (David in DC & Itsmejudith). Itsmejudith did not explain her rationale for "delete" other than "I think it should be deleted". I realized another thing that I have a question about -- what constitutes an editor to be considered a "project member" of a WikiProject? I actually don't know the answer but I'm going to guess that once anyone edited any subpage of the WikiProject, they automatically becomes a project member? CalvinTy 20:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. As part of a project, we need to keep track on the oldest people in the world. If we delete this page, the process on finding supercentenerians and putting on the List of living supercentenarians page will be more labor intense (researching unverified cases). Also, we won't know who to expect to be turning 110 without this list. I agree with AMK152 that this is a WikiProject page, not an article.--HoHHo56Oy (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. After I have asked the questions and made my comments, I also have read about Userfy. From what I understand, Userfy means that the content of the future supercentenarians subpage would be moved to a specific user's userspace?? How does that solve anything? I imagine that even userspace are still required to comply with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, right? As David in DC said earlier, "And asking to delete an editor's subpage is likely to be more disruptive than trying to delete a project subpage". That makes sense so Userfy would not be the correct move here. Furthermore, Uzma Gamal said it perfectly for me, "Arbcom didn't seem to have a problem with the page. With the close of the recent Arbcom case, it is more important to let that Wikiproject work on its consensus developing mechanism than to use the heavy hand of MfD in an attempt to force it into one direction or another. Moreover, deleting the page will not set policy for the WikiProject and that WikiProject still will be able to keep track of people whom are potential future supercentenarians. The page seems to be a useful tool for that project. The page is in Misplaced Pages space, not article space, and I don't see any valid reason presented to delete it. How would deleting this project page further that goal?" Considering what Uzma Gamal stated and how Userfy does not seem to help anything other than "sweeping the issue under the rug by moving to an userspace", I recommend that we keep this subpage & allow the ArbCom recommendation to bear fruit for the project members to improve the subpage. CalvinTy 20:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a working page, not an article. If anything it aids in the accuracy and verification of any material placed in an article. Arguments for its deletion are akin to saying that someone’s comments here do not fit Misplaced Pages’s policies and should be deleted. It’s a nonsense. Cam46136 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136
• Keep This article is in the state of building. It will never be abandoned. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Quandary: ArbCom tells the 17 of us on the project (Calvin, all you need do is add your name as lucky #18 on the project main page to join) to seek guidance from more experienced editors.

(1) On the day after the ArbCom case closes, a topic-banned editor posts news of census data about city polopulations on his talk page. I think posting any kind of census data, so close to the imposition of the ban, worrisome. I ask for enforcement (in the form of admonishment only) and am batted away by experienced editors who close with no action, although the closer says

I concur that this request is not immediately actionable because 's comment was not unquestionably related to Longevity (from which he is topic-banned). But it is clear why the filing party could argue that the comment did constitute a topic-ban violation, and I would accordingly caution against attempting to evade his topic-ban by means of a comment on an unrelated venue (such as his talk page). Editors who are topic-banned often find that leniency is rarely showed by administrators in complaints about ban evasion, and must be especially careful that he is never participating in a discussion relating to longevity. That aside, this complaint is not actionable, and so I will with this edit close this thread. AGK 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(2) ArbCom specifically declines to opine on the content-realted issue of whether tables about longevity hosted by the Gerontology Research Group on www.grg.org are reliable sources. Urges the project to seek advice from uninvolved, RS-savvy editors at WP:RSN. I do. There are a few desultory comments and then one of the experienced editors notes the lack of interest by other experienced editors by commenting on the metaphorical sound of crickets chirping. To fill the void, project members and others fill the void. That makes me oh-for-two in engaging the assistance of these becoming-to-seem-mythical editors ArbCom imagines are eager to help.

(3) An editor with whom I often disagree notes just how far out-of-compliance with the rules this subpage festooned with a big red disclaimer seems to be. WP:DISCLAIM, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. The bizzare notion that our rules, policies and guidelines don't apply to project subpages sounds to me like the ultimate WP:FORK problem, kind of a meta-FORK.*

Over the next couple of days, Calvin offers a differing opinion and a previously-totally-uninvolved editor comes on the scene to agree with my project colleague's initial post. Not sure about whether this is the mythic experienced, uninvolved editor of ArbCom's dreams, I seek additional reality check here. The thrust of the uninvolved, experienced editors' comments here (factoring out project members and others who've been editing pages covered by the WOP WikiProject is, "solve it amongst yourselves." Oh-for-three.

• But wouldn't "Ultimate MetaFork" be an awesome name for a rock band?! David in DC (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)