Talk:List of living centenarians

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 December 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Redundancy

This article is unnecessary, the Lists of centenarians cover exactly the same subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's just a redundant content fork. I've nominated it for deletion, because there's no real place it could be redirected to or merged with. Canadian Paul 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is different than Lists of centenarians because Lists of centenarians covers centenarians who are dead and alive while this one only covers living centenarians. This article is more direct.

Order

The table is sortable, but still shouldn't it start out in some reasonable order, either name or age? Ma^t_chups 01:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, age would be the most reasonable option I feel --Jkaharper (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of this article

Hello. I started this article 2 days ago and found it considered for deletion the next morning. Unfortunately my computer skills (compared to advanced editors) are quite low. Therefore I had been expecting for someone else to create this article and requested its creation a few weeks ago. However since none of the editors deemed its existence essential, I decided to start the article myself.

As for the importance of this list I can say that it could save a huge amount of time for some researchers. Indeed, several longevity and centenarian fellows I know have emphasized that the best way to detect "fresh" centenarians (notable people who've just turned 100) is visiting Wikipedia's list of centenarians. However, as you might see this article is split in 18 pages which is the core of the problem. Now imagine a researcher clicking on all of those 18 links separately and checking all the centenarians on those lists who've turned 100 in 2010. Obviously, this process is time-consuming. I do believe it would be much more convenient to click on List of living centenarians, sort entries by age and simply observe new entries. That would take a few seconds and make researchers' lives much more easier.

In fact, none of the lists concerning centenarians need to be deleted. What has to be done for efficiency is the reorganization of these lists so that an editor doesn't have to write an entry twice. That is, by adding a living person to one of those 18 lists the same entry is automatically added to the list of living centenarians and the way around. This is where my low computer skills show up as I have no idea how to do that. I'll be extremely thankful for any support in organizing the list of centenarians as a whole since currently the article is inefficient and very time-consuming for most researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septuaginta (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septuaginta (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Forgot: Sergey Nikolsky. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Ma^t_chups 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huguette Clark!!! Famous heiress, in the press recently. 104 or 105. Seven Letters 21:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing People

There are some living people in List of supercentenarians which are not in this article

Sort Table

It would be nice if someone had modified the table so that it started in a reasonable order (either sorted by name or by age) Unfortunately that's beyond my computer skills

Done it by date Ifore2010 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another missing person

The actress Lupita Tovar recently turned 101. She should be on this list too.