Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:35, 11 February 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. The consensus of the discussion is that this is a useful page for the project, and the arguments offered for deletion are primarily article-focused criteria (e.g., WP:CRYSTAL) that are of less concern for project-space pages. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

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)

• Improvement #1: I agree that per WP:DISCLAIM, there is no need for a disclaimer on the top of the page. I removed that, and I tried to provide a better opening statement that shows the purpose of having a working list of potential (or pending) supercentenarians. CalvinTy 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Improvement #2: A couple of days ago, I felt that this page needed a References section so I began to do the process. I felt I made a good start after my edit. Unfortunately, another project member apparently undid all of my efforts. I have inquired into why the member did so here. I see that David in DC recently has been able to add references at a much faster pace than I originally did. I appreciate David in DC's efforts here, even with his proactive stance of removing Yahoo Group WOP citations since, if nothing else, the Yahoo Group WOP is a closed membership. I do understand the logic of not allowing the citation because "Mr. John Q. Public" would not be able to see the citation. I will look into those citations that had pointed to the Yahoo Group WOP, and as a member, I'll see if those messages point to an outside source for citation use. CalvinTy 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Some points/questions (and hopefully my last contribution on this topic):

1. 1. A Misplaced Pages:WikiProject "is a project to manage a specific topic or family of topics within Misplaced Pages. It is composed of a collection of pages and a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of those articles."
   2. "It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly". Is the subpage under discussion here an article or not? Even the user contributions above disagree. It certainly looks like a duck. In fact it looks like an extension of List of living supercentenarians except that instead of living verified/pending/unverified, but "reliably" cited, supercentenarians we have a collection of "might be a supercentenarians but without a "reliable" citation, or none at all, and even though we have no proof that they're even alive for a couple of years we'll keep them on the list, just in case" and "not yet even claimed to be a supercentenarian, with or without a reliable citation and there might not even be any evidence for years that they are still actually alive, but we'll keep them on the list just in case". Is that even encyclopedic?
   3. "...a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of those articles." Merely adding, mostly without discussion, names to a list which seems to have virtually no parameters "to keep track of people whom are potential future supercentenarians" and without which it would "be more labor intense (researching unverified cases)" doesn't seem much like coordinating and organising to me, more like listcruft, especially given the paucity of citations. Is it even the purpose of wiki to keep an eye out for something in case it might eventually be worthy of including in an actual article? Surely the Yahoo WOP has something like this anyway, if not it should, so why should wiki be used as extension of of a messageboard/forum/usergroup when it is specifically not for that purpose? If it is indeed "useful" there's no particular reason it has to be here (in fact that are many reasons it should not), certainly not in it's current state. And if supercentenarian claimants are discovered without using this list, as I suspect they have been, why is it so vital anyway?
   4. Is Yahoo Groups WOP a reliable source or not? Are user groups, forums and messageboards reliable or not? There must be a definitive answer somewhere, if not perhaps it's time to have one established, surely it's overdue for some decision to be made.
   5. The ArbCom recommendation that this Project seek the advice of experienced editors seems to have been totally ignored. In fact any input at all seems to have been totally disregarded by many of the members of this project.
   6. ""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?" If the majority of the members of this group persist in showing no inclination whatsoever in accepting any advice from any user with regard to any attempt at bringing this project inline with basic wiki principles then deletion would seem to be the only solution. "Deleting the subpage would harm the project" I seriously doubt that, there is nothing that is actually useful here that could not be done elsewhere, as could most of the fluff. "This article (sic) will never be abandoned" is hardly indicative of any willingness to listen to anyone outside the project.
   7. Deletion of this subpage is not the only solution. It could easily be userfied, a link on the main project page would be the same number of clicks would make it just as easy to find. Or, this subpage could easily be tidied up to comply with wiki policies/guidelines, once those have been clearly identified.
   8. Finally, to clear up any misapprehensions, I have never been a member of this project; I have never even looked at Yahoo Groups WOP; I have been interested in longevity for over 35 years, but I have many other interests which I see as more important; the first article I contributed to on wiki, nearly 4 years ago, was longevity related; I have removed a number of longevity-related articles from my watchlist because they persisted in retaining wiki-inappropriate content, and didn't miss them. Given all that, the existence or otherwise of this project really won't make any difference to me, unless I am again threatened with being topic banned from longevity articles (the instigator of my recent involvement), or the workings of this project adversely affect the few remaining longevity articles that I consider still to be worthwhile.

Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 10:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Echo Especially in light of this series of edits. No edit summaries, no discussion, just wholesale revision, including cites to the gosh-darned Yahoo! group again. Yoo-hoo, more experienced wikipedia editors! Without edit warring, and without you, WTF?!David in DC (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's one with an edit summary. Of course the edit summary confirms the unwillingness to follow the WikiProject Notability and sourcing guidance. And Calvin has sought dialogue about this on Nick's page, to no avail. Yoo-hoo, elusive, ArbCom-prophesied more experienced wikipedia editors! Without edit warring, and without you, WTF?! David in DC (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to DerbyCountyinNZ

2. The "write encyclopedia articles directly" phrase refers to the fact that any WikiProject shouldn't use their collection of pages to actually create encyclopedia articles in that space. Rather, if some content is ready to be included in a Misplaced Pages article, that's where the content should go to, e.g. List of living supercentenarians. The subpage is not a Misplaced Pages article. The "Future supercentenarians" subpage was likely created because it allows multiple editors to identify potential supercentenarian claims; having those names on the list allows editors to find citations and/or evidence whether a particular name is still living or not. Like I have commented before, a.) we shouldn't assume either way -- whether a claimant is still living or have died without fanfare, and b.) a potential (or future) supercentenarian claim does not necessarily mean we will easily find a citation right off the bat confirming that their heart is still beating.  :-)

3. A valid discussion here. Yes, at Yahoo Groups WOP, we aim to collect all potential claims of ages 108+. However, this is a membership-required group. Misplaced Pages serves as a wider audience for other Misplaced Pages editors to provide input about those claims that our members may not be aware of. However, in its current state, the subpage certainly needs a citation for each entry to avoid making it look like listcruft. Hopefully, in time, when most -- if not all -- of the entries have citations, then I believe this MfD is no longer necessary as all concerns would have been addressed.

5. Please be careful here. I cannot locate the appropriate Wiki guideline but using the word "many" implies something that isn't there; other than NickOrnstein not collaborating with project members with his wholesale edits, I think we are trying to listen but defending our position at the same time. Heck, the ArbCom recommendation was made only less than two weeks ago; at RSN, there just seems to be a lack of uninvolved experienced editors to provide neutral advice as David in DC has mentioned.

6. Again, please be careful here. You stated, "majority of the members". That's implying something that's just simply untrue. Yes, again, as you quoted NickOrnstein, he appears to have difficulty in being willing to listen for advice. However, that's not representative of the majority of project members, I believe.

7. "this subpage could easily be tidied up to comply with wiki policies/guidelines, once those have been clearly identified." That's precisely what I'm hoping what we (project members) plan to do without continuing with this MfD. CalvinTy 13:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion seems now to be at an impasse. User:Reyk above says that the WikiProject doesn't have the right to decide whether the page stays or goes. However, on WP:RSN we have just been advised that the WikiProject does have that right. Could anyone direct us towards policy on WikiProject subpages? thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

KEEP It is a valuable resource that helps maintain the integrity of Misplaced Pages entries. It is useful and informative to those interested. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: Per the posts above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Per the bosts above. And it seems to me some people constantly have issues regarding articles or projects concerning the oldest people in the world. Okay, there is room for improvement, but there's absolutely no reason to delete this project page. Guidje (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The "some people" referred to above do not "...constantly have issues regarding articles or projects concerning the oldest people in the world." It's the multifarious articles, lists, project pages, project talk pages, project subpages, and project subpage talk pages that have the problems. The problems are akin to the massive resistance that is a sad legacy of my home state of Virginia. Focus on the edits, not the editors. L.E. summed up the real problem(s) better than I could ever hope to. And then blithely reiterated them. David in DC (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.