Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians

List of Australian supercentenarians

List of Australian supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This list covers most of the people on List of supercentenarians from Oceania where the country of everyone is already noted. It is the only county specific breakout of the Oceania group, a list that is not so long it requires breaking out. Delete, leaving the title as a redirect to the Oceania article. This will reduce the maintenance required and the chances of error or variation. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The article List of supercentenarians from Oceania should be deleted, not this one. Australia is a country so deserves it's own article. Oceania is not a country so should be deleted as they do not warrant a separate entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Except Australia and Oceania aren't the same thing, so this argument doesn't really work. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

according to the old people trackers Aussieland is in Oceania. There are no country specific articles for any other place in the region, so either exclude Aussieland from Oceania or merge. As it is old people in Aust go on the country list, the region list, and the world list and the three lists don't match up, so evidently there are errors. However someone lucky enough to live in New Zealand only goes on two lists - world and Oceania. Someone got a better idea that will reduce maintenance and move toward greater accuracy - please share. 23:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

• Keep. There's no reason we can't have two lists (plus List of New Zealand supercentenarians, if one were so inclined). Keeping them in sync and accurate is not a deletion issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep This remains a valuable encyclopedic resource; and those who need or desire specific divisions can rely appropriately on Wikipedia. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Merge to Oceania list. All these scattered, overlapping slices and dices by country, region, etc. have no advantage over a small set of larger lists (pseudo-continental), which are easily sorted and searched on e.g. country. And the scattered lists have the disadvantage of maintenance headaches. `EEng (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Merge to Oceania list. Unnecessary duplication of material for nothing more than fanfluff listcruft reasons. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Why do you want to remove Australia? With this argument you also can remove United States and Canada articles because they are the only North American countries (next to Greenland, Bermuda and St Pierre et Miquelon) and merge this into the North American list. --31.16.61.184 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The US and Canada lists should be eliminated as well, just as you say. This is a big job and it can't happen all at once. EEng (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's on my to do list. I started with nominating the Caribbean list to be merged with North America because it is just a random subset of North America where all the people are also listed. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when is this a job? Are you paid to nominate articles for deletion? Petervermaelen (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Are you paid to make nonsense posts intentionally misinterpreting common English words? (Or was it unintentional?) EEng (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian Paul 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with the Oceania list. This is a fork that manages to cause maintenance hassle. Unified lists should be preferred. Some large countries such as the United States or China might justify a list for single country, but Australia does not have enough population. Ceosad (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You say the United States or China might justify a stand-alone article because they are large countries. Then you suddenly say Australia doesn't have enough population. However Australia is a large country. Suppose tomorrow a plague spread in China and 99% of the population dies. Then all of a sudden it wouldn't justify a stand-alone article anymore? That argument doesn't make any sense. Petervermaelen (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of the verified oldest people. No reason for all of these location-specific lists. One list for the world is enough. I suspect redirecting to List of supercentenarians from Oceania will be the more popular idea here, and I'm OK with that too, as a fallback position. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)