Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest people by year of death (2nd nomination)

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest people by year of death

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

Like the recently-deleted List of oldest people by year of birth, there are no reliable sources discussing this particular data set (which is the oldest person that died in a given year). This list is also a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of oldest people and dying in a particular year. Ca2james (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like "Oldest by year of birth" this is meaningless trivia. EEng (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as if this cannot be achieved with some fancy table sorting magic at the List of oldest people (or related places). Delete 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already is at the various "died in year X" articles. :-) CommanderLinx (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Like the other, deleted list, this is badly named (it's the oldest supercentenarian per year) and trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why it was kept six months ago. Fails WP:V as no reliable sources exist that state "person X was oldest to die in year Y" and is just a trivial list that is already achieved in the various sortable tables in the "died in year X" articles under Template:Longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: um, not that bad as you think. 333 -blue 11:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I listed on its sibling page (oldest people by year of birth): I don't see much substantial evidence that this is a topic covered in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, which therefore makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia per the notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 16:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and of more interest to "fans" than the wider public. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More or less list cruft. Perhaps an appropriate topic for an appendix to the Guinness Book of World Records. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft aswell as unsourced. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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