Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic aging list

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historic aging list

Oh god. Yet another list page. And a pointless waste of space at that. Also, it's impossible to determine who is famous or who is not famous...slippery slope and a waste of space. --Woohookitty 21:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ouch. I can't even tell what this is from the awful forrmatting. Is this just a list of really old people for every year? Why? Delete. Please. The fact that Alexander the Great is on a list of old people is highly amusing, however. -R. fiend 21:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This article seems to be trying to replicate the contents of the Births and Deaths sections of the various year articles into a single article. The reference to Young's Historic Aging List also makes me suspect that this was copied from somewhere. The individual year articles contain the same information. Delete as duplication --Allen3 23:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be claiming to be naming the oldest famous person of each year (the actual selection process appears to be pretty much random), but the formatting is shot to pieces and due to the haphazard selection criteria it is simply POV and not encyclopedic. Average Earthman 00:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless drastically cleaned up, I can't make sense of it at present. PatGallacher 01:24, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
• Delete. That page makes me nauseous just looking at it. Doesn't seem useful even if cleaned up. RickK 08:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Illucid, poorly formatted, and redundant. Binadot 16:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I really can't see this going anywhere; even were it coherent it'd a) be trying to prove a point (original research) and b) not actually managing, due to shoddy methodology (One person a year? Sheesh). Shimgray 17:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is surely a copyvio if ever I did see one! Or did the author research each single year and type the result in, manually? If so, give the guy a medal for sheer devotion to pointlessness.--Orelstrigo 17:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is an interesting concept, but for many reasons doesn't appear appropriate as a page of the wikipedia. I would recommend the author consider editing some of the pages of those famous people to note the point at which they became the oldest famous person for a given period of time. I'd also recommend that they brush up on the wiki pages pertaining to writing entries and practice a little in the sandbox, Believe me, I am still learning myself, but this page is just mind-boggling in its current form. -- Glen Finney 20:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.