1393:"One event" was intended that, if someone were the witness to an event or a participant in one event, then they are not notable just because they did an interview for TV In the case of someone notable for age, the person is notable due to their age, not just an "event". Being recognized as Ireland's oldest person at 107 and dying at 108 are two events, anyway. Old Yeller21 is profoundly misstating and misusing WP: ONE EVENT. Basically, what he is saying is that someone can NEVER be notable for age, and only notable if they were famous before old age. But the Jeanne Calment article proves that is not true. So, use Jeanne Calment as an example that, firstly, someone CAN be noted for age only, and secondly, since Calment's age coverage lasted far more than one event, ONE EVENT doesn't apply.
442:. I could be convinced that this case is fundamentally different but it seems to me that picking an arbitrary number (at what age does one become notable?) isn't something that Knowledge has ever done but if we're covering what humans consider notable, represented by significant and independent coverage from reliable sources, there has been some coverage. Still, that coverage verges on non-significant as it only covers her age. As an example, I've seen longer obituaries but that doesn't make a person notable, even though it can be covered in several reliable and independent sources. What's the difference? Again, it seems to be an arbitrary number. At least the references used in the article aren't in the obituary section. That at least leaves the door open for an argument.
1259:. Why shouldn't I "stumble upon" it any more than anyone else here has stumbled upon it? Who said anything about having to be new? I contribute now and again, I have no control over what number I appear as, or when I appear as it, and I don't mess around with user pages - they're nothing but decorations and a waste of time. This is supposed to be "the 💕 that anyone can edit" - that's some joke. Make one edit and there's somebody there just waiting to report you for breaking some rule or another. You can take it or leave it, I couldn't care less, I have better things to be doing. A SPA? "Limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose"? Some SPA I am - football, handball, reading,
1416:" If people read the WP: One Event guidelines, someone who is notable only due to their link in one event (for example, a witness gives an interview to a fire; the man who filmed the Rodney King beating, etc) is not usually notable, unless the person was involved in planning the event beforehand. For example, assassins such as Garilov Princip may be notable because they planned out the event beforehand." When it comes to "old age," old age is NOT an event. Celebrating a 114th birthday is an event. Becoming the WOP is an event. Being 114 is NOT an event. There is a difference.
1233:
on your userpage would be beneficial to you. Regardless, this really isn't the place to make such comments. You should be doing that at the ANI thread. I have only brought up an issue. I haven't accused you of any wrong doing but try to see it from the perspective of others. It appears as though you came out of the woodwork just to !vote here. You can easily correct this issue via the method I mentioned above and commenting at ANI. There's really no reason to be offended. If there's nothing fishy going on, you can easily dispel any confusion.
1183:. It appears that there is a long list of concerns regarding off-Wiki canvassing and special attention paid to !voting Keep on AfDs related to people of age. The list includes SPIs, ArbCom hearings, ANI reports of altering comments, and being banned from websites dedicated to studying old people (I couldn't think of a better way to describe that website). The SPA anon above was listed there as well.
56:, as we are not dealing with an event as such, but more a series of events (this woman's life) leading to a single fact which they argue denotes notability. However it appears quite clear that this single fact is not notable enough to stand on its own as a criteria for notability. The closest existing rule to this assertion can be found
1232:
because the first edit you ever edit you ever made had to do with age and the second was to this AFD. That's not exactly the editing habits of someone who's new to WP or just stumbled upon this AfD (somehow) and started citing guidelines. If you normally edit from another account or IP, noting that
938:
Thank you for that rather repetitive response, but it is you who ignores the fact that the birthday and title are separate events, her 108th birthday probably would've been mentioned title or no title. I'm sure their were originally articles for her 107 and maybe earlier birthdays, but there is this
882:
I might agree with you if there was coverage that was gained for a reason other than her being the oldest person in the country. That's what I keep asking you to provide - significant coverage from an independent and reliable source that was created for a reason other than because she was the oldest
1293:
Others can draw their own conclusion. You were an SPA when you came here and your second edit was to an AfD - not something new editors stumble upon. You could have avoided all of this by just mentioning what other IPs you've edited under but for some reason, you choose not to. There's no need to
683:
It's a good thing you didn't close the discussion as a !voter and as you, at the very least, haven't changed my mind. I'm still seeing that just being the oldest person in a county doesn't satisfy any inclusion guideline. I think others here feel the same. So far, you're the only keep !voter that
1205:
Is that me you are attacking in that derogatory manner? This is the first I've heard about being listed on any website dedicated to studying old people. By the way, if that is me you are calling a "SPA", you should really take a closer look at my contributions. The only reason I've had to make more
996:
because you feel bad about this article being deleted and are attempting to subvert any legitimate conversation by saying that articles should have and would have existed, all while being completely unable to provide an article that covered this subject outside of the one event. Hopefully you have
915:
Yes. Thank you. You've proven my point that the only coverage of her was for the one event I've mentioned numerous times. I'm starting to get the feeling that you're being dense on purpose to conflate the conversation to make it appear that anyone with a keep !vote has an actual reason to ignore
1545:
Without trying to create new policy, I'd say it logically follows along the lines of our general consensus for world record holders, since they're essentially local record holders. Broadly speaking, while some record holders are notable for other things (like athletics & music records), and a
764:
As nominator, I still support delete in light of what has been since added to the article, for the reasons I enunciated before and for the reasons others have enunciated in support of delete. Also, I would STRONGLY object to anybody other than an uninvolved administrator attempting to close this.
668:
I have just merged in information from an AFC submission, and I added four more independent sources, including two unique ones from the ones that were already there. Thus, she has been covered by many news sites, and there are probably more out there if anyone decided to put a concentrated effort
969:
The only birthday coverage was due to one event - her being the oldest person. You keep mentioning other articles that "probably" or "would have" existed but can't provide any. Until you can prove that any article existed as coverage of her outside of the one event (again, her being the oldest
527:
As has been pointed out, there are 196 countries in the world, the oldest person in each country probably changes every few years, if we treat anyone who was the oldest person in any country even in the past few decades as inherently notable then we have several hundred articles on our hands.
347:
The thing about being a centenarian is that unless they've accomplished something notable, they're not considered to be notable enough to have their own article. That other articles exist doesn't really mean anything, as it might just mean that the article has yet to be brought up for AfD or
716:
I meant country but missed the 'r'. As several others have stated, where is the line drawn? There are 196 countries and based on this loose, non-consensus, inclusion guideline, are we to include 196 people at any given time. Each time one of those 196 die, we add another? Why not go by
52:. Unfortunately, given that this is a unique situation without it's own criteria for notability, multiple rules must be amalgamated and interpreted in spirit, rather than by the letter. As some users have pointed out, this article does not technically meet the criteria for
348:
otherwise redirected to another article. Now when the centenarian is dead, that's where it gets tricky. If they didn't reach the status of supercentenarian (110+), then the redirect and article should be deleted as far as I can tell per the rules here on
Knowledge.
1435:
Obviously, several people disagree with you. Put simply, she wasn't the world's oldest person as you mention. That's very different. She was only covered for one thing, twice, and something that several people here don't feel establishes notability.
1126:
What other stuff? How does that apply either? You aren't making any sense. I trust that that the reviewing administrator will have the good sense to completely discount your contributions. You've certainly done your level best to discount mine.
1491:- known only for being the oldest person in Ireland at the time of her death, there seems to be little biographical information to sustain an article (apart from her dietary habits) despite her death being covered in several news sources.
189:
1022:. Recognised by the President's office (how much more official can you get on these matters?) and has long-standing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, dating from before her death as well, thereby satisfying
1526:
It's probably a discussion that's taken place before, considering peoples' comments above about supercentenarians. Maybe someone needs to create a "List of oldest people in
Ireland". I see the previous two incumbents
1145:
You should really read what I linked. It basically mentions that citing that other situations exist on
Knowledge is not a good argument. Situations are independent here and precedents don't really hold any value.
849:
Exactly. Only articles that cover her being the oldest person. Her actual age is as relevant as her name. Again, do you have any articles that cover her age before she was the oldest person in the country?
414:
Question - covered how? Do you mean her death was covered or something she did during her life? As has been pointed out, while living to over 100 is an achievement, it alone does not make the person notable.
1508:- I would like some, but I'm not asure if there is, any consensus about whether being the oldest person living in one's country is sufficient -- by itself -- for notability. Can we have some clarification?
1358:. Being the oldest person in the world is probably notable, but being oldest in a single country, not really. Being noted by the president isn't a big deal either, in the US the president will
717:
state/province? What about continent? By country is an arbitrary distinction that no one seems to have been able to justify yet - just agree with. It seems much more logical to keep a list of
438:
not apply here? The subject seems to only be notable for one event - dying at 108 years old. The coverage seems to only cover this one even. I don't see how that establishes notability per
73:, specifically criteria two as there is no evidence that an enduring record (significant enough for notability as seen in criteria one) will be made of this woman simply because of her age.
1466:
Obviously several people agree with me. Put simply, I didn't say she was the world's oldest person, I was giving an example. Several people here do feel that establishes notability.
183:
817:
I've only seen references that she was the oldest person and then died as the oldest person. To me, oldest person = one event. I haven't seen any coverage otherwise. Have you?
803:
She was noted not just for the title, but also for her birthdays, and those sources prove it. It's not an Orphan either, their are other articles about Irish centenarians.
1206:
than one edit here is to respond to your insidious remarks. I have nothing to do with "Longevitydude" and I take umbrage at your shocking attitude, your appalling lack of
469:
Are we going to create articles about the oldest person from each one? On the other hand, informative and verifiable content should be kept (somewhere) wherever possible.
142:
1180:
220:
This person had zero notability during her lifetime. Simply being the oldest person of a particular nation at the point of death does not confer notability. Fails
265:
1272:
241:
115:
110:
329:
there are plenty of other centenarians who have pages on here as well and the only thing they were really known for was being old so why delete this page ?
119:
149:
102:
1255:
You have some nerve. The only thing fishy going on is your attempt to disrupt the contributions of anyone who disagrees with your POV. It's listed
80:
to deal with the wider issues at play here. However, working within the existing framework, this appears to be the logical conclusion of this AfD.
204:
171:
1550:
became wrestlers), but there's loads of precedent that simply holding a record and being in the
Guinness Book isn't notable on its own.
1276:
1211:
1128:
1083:
1031:
1078:? Yet you want to use it to query an article on a woman officially recognised by the President's office? Clearly you don't understand
528:
Knowledge is not paper, but there are limits. There are some things might be inherently notable, e.g. making it to supercenenarian.
669:
into this. I would have closed this as a non-administrator in light of those developments, but I'll let someone else figure it out.
1256:
17:
165:
76:
Given the difficulty of interpreting these rules in unique cases such as this it may be pertinent to create a subsection of
404:
70:
1528:
161:
1601:
1569:
1540:
1517:
1500:
1475:
1449:
1425:
1402:
1381:
1346:
1307:
1284:
1246:
1219:
1196:
1159:
1136:
1117:
1091:
1061:
1039:
1010:
983:
948:
933:
910:
896:
877:
863:
844:
830:
812:
798:
774:
748:
734:
711:
697:
678:
656:
620:
599:
581:
564:
537:
517:
499:
478:
455:
424:
409:
381:
359:
338:
334:
321:
301:
281:
257:
233:
84:
1362:
to anyone over 80 (70 for veterans), plus various other random events such as bar mitzvahs. Front page news it ain't.
1207:
1079:
739:
Honestly I'd say state/province is a good line to draw, though I'm someone who thinks every city and town is notable.
211:
369:
106:
1620:
40:
486:- covered by significant news sources. Not saying the oldest ethnic person of each country is notable, however.
98:
90:
330:
1471:
1421:
1398:
1280:
1215:
1132:
1087:
1035:
944:
906:
873:
840:
808:
744:
707:
616:
577:
559:
269:
245:
611:
She was honored by the office of
President of Ireland Michael D. Higgins as the country's oldest citizen.
533:
504:
Then how is this person notable with only two news articles that were created in the wake of their death?
177:
1616:
648:
401:
352:
61:(A being in this case the subject and well-known person B being the President or age-group respectively)
36:
1447:
1334:
1305:
1244:
1194:
1157:
1115:
1101:
1059:
1008:
981:
931:
894:
861:
828:
732:
695:
597:
515:
493:
474:
453:
77:
1342:
197:
1467:
1417:
1394:
1045:
993:
940:
917:
902:
869:
836:
804:
740:
703:
612:
573:
554:
546:
435:
297:
57:
53:
467:
1513:
1355:
1330:
868:
Thats irrelevant because the birthday and the gaining of a new title are two separate events.
787:
529:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1615:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
992:
that they, "sympathize with other members whose articles got afds". I think you're ignoring
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1023:
791:
770:
674:
641:
629:
420:
397:
377:
349:
317:
229:
1597:
1586:
1536:
1496:
1438:
1296:
1264:
1235:
1185:
1148:
1106:
1050:
999:
972:
922:
885:
852:
819:
723:
686:
588:
506:
488:
470:
444:
1359:
1294:
get so upset about it. Would you not think something was fishy if you were in my shoes?
1104:. What notability guideline does being recognized by the president of Ireland satisfy?
65:
The second consideration for deletion is notability. Though the subject obviously meets
1551:
1363:
1338:
1075:
1582:
1547:
1229:
1027:
920:. Unless you have something new to bring up, I will no longer be responding to you.
718:
462:
439:
310:
293:
221:
66:
1509:
1030:, and, this being an encyclopedia, so of course it would stock "oldest people". --
136:
1326:
783:
766:
670:
550:
416:
373:
313:
225:
1592:
1532:
1492:
939:
thing called a "deal link" that I'm sure those articles unfortunately became.
81:
632:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
970:
person), you're talking in circles about things you apparently can't prove.
1210:, and your attempts to discredit anyone who holds an opposing opinion. --
1389:- I would like to explain old yeller's misrepresentation of one event.
372:. Many of those other articles would be deleted if they faced an AfD.
835:
Yes, her article has sources covering her 107th and 108th birthdays.
1337:
recognises all Irish centenarians, So what is notable about that?
1609:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
765:
This is a contested AfD and a non-admin close is impermissible.
1546:
few have spun world records into general notability (the
1410:
Heres perhaps a better clarification as my previous post
1268:
1260:
989:
132:
128:
124:
196:
988:
I don't know why I've been arguing with someone who
639:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
684:hasn't failed to answer the questions of others.
395:- She was covered in widely read publications. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1623:). No further edits should be made to this page.
997:nothing to do with SPAs showing up to !vote.
586:What notability guideline does that satisfy?
210:
8:
549:as mentioned above and, to a lesser extent,
266:list of Ireland-related deletion discussions
264:Note: This debate has been included in the
240:Note: This debate has been included in the
242:list of People-related deletion discussions
721:, if we consider being very old, notable.
263:
239:
224:. PROD was declined without explanation.
1275:, a dead lady. You're beyond contempt. --
1076:a guy known for seeing someone get killed
901:I did, her 108th birthday was covered.
553:in regards to the level of sourcing.
466:There are 196 countries in the world.
7:
1181:I have reported Longevitydude at ANI
71:the general criteria for biographies
24:
1074:Because it permits an article on
572:She was Ireland's oldest person.
368:Agree with previous poster per
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
702:Country, not just her county.
69:they similarly obviously fail
1:
1080:what one event actually means
1602:14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
1570:23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1541:23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1518:21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1501:00:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1476:16:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1450:01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1426:18:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1403:23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1382:19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1347:19:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1308:01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1285:21:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1247:19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1220:19:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1197:19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1160:19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1137:19:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1118:19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1092:18:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1062:18:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1040:18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1011:18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
984:16:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
949:16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
934:06:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
911:23:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
897:23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
878:23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
864:23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
845:22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
831:20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
813:13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
799:08:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
621:13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
85:15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
775:18:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
749:16:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
735:16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
712:16:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
698:01:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
679:22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
657:22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
600:20:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
582:18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
565:16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
538:13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
518:05:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
500:03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
479:19:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
456:05:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
425:22:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
410:21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
382:05:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
360:04:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
339:04:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
322:20:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
302:19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
282:19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
258:19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
234:17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
1640:
1612:Please do not modify it.
1529:died in quick succession
1325:per nom and others plus
990:states on their userpage
99:Mary Byrne (centenarian)
91:Mary Byrne (centenarian)
32:Please do not modify it.
883:person in the country.
1585:, per CorporateM and
1335:President of Ireland
370:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
331:Entity of the Void
48:The result was
659:
284:
260:
1631:
1614:
1595:
1567:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1444:
1443:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1302:
1301:
1241:
1240:
1191:
1190:
1154:
1153:
1112:
1111:
1056:
1055:
1005:
1004:
978:
977:
928:
927:
891:
890:
858:
857:
825:
824:
797:
790:and, I suspect,
729:
728:
692:
691:
671:Kevin Rutherford
654:
651:
644:
638:
634:
594:
593:
562:
557:
512:
511:
496:
491:
450:
449:
408:
407:
356:
278:
275:
272:
254:
251:
248:
215:
214:
200:
152:
140:
122:
34:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1621:deletion review
1610:
1590:
1579:Selective merge
1565:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1441:
1439:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1360:send a greeting
1299:
1297:
1238:
1236:
1188:
1186:
1151:
1149:
1109:
1107:
1053:
1051:
1002:
1000:
975:
973:
925:
923:
888:
886:
855:
853:
822:
820:
796:DerbyCountyinNZ
795:
726:
724:
689:
687:
649:
646:
642:
627:
591:
589:
560:
555:
509:
507:
494:
489:
447:
445:
400:
396:
354:
276:
273:
270:
252:
249:
246:
157:
148:
113:
97:
94:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1637:
1635:
1626:
1625:
1605:
1604:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1552:Andrew Lenahan
1543:
1521:
1520:
1503:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1391:
1390:
1384:
1364:Andrew Lenahan
1349:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1288:
1287:
1250:
1249:
1223:
1222:
1200:
1199:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1140:
1139:
1121:
1120:
1095:
1094:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
777:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
662:
661:
660:
636:
635:
625:
624:
623:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
567:
540:
522:
521:
520:
481:
458:
429:
428:
427:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
363:
362:
342:
341:
324:
304:
286:
285:
261:
218:
217:
154:
93:
88:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1636:
1624:
1622:
1618:
1613:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1594:
1588:
1584:
1583:Oldest people
1580:
1577:
1576:
1571:
1568:
1553:
1549:
1548:fattest twins
1544:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1486:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:Longevitydude
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1451:
1448:
1446:
1445:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1418:Longevitydude
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1395:Longevitydude
1388:
1385:
1383:
1380:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1303:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1277:86.40.107.199
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1242:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:86.40.107.199
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1192:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1155:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:86.40.107.199
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1113:
1103:
1102:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:86.40.107.199
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1057:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:86.40.107.199
1029:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1006:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
982:
980:
979:
968:
950:
946:
942:
941:Longevitydude
937:
936:
935:
932:
930:
929:
919:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
903:Longevitydude
900:
899:
898:
895:
893:
892:
881:
880:
879:
875:
871:
870:Longevitydude
867:
866:
865:
862:
860:
859:
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
837:Longevitydude
834:
833:
832:
829:
827:
826:
816:
815:
814:
810:
806:
805:Longevitydude
802:
801:
800:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
776:
772:
768:
763:
760:
750:
746:
742:
741:Longevitydude
738:
737:
736:
733:
731:
730:
720:
719:Oldest people
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
704:Longevitydude
701:
700:
699:
696:
694:
693:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
667:
664:
663:
658:
655:
652:
645:
637:
633:
631:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:Longevitydude
610:
609:
608:
607:
601:
598:
596:
595:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
574:Longevitydude
571:
568:
566:
563:
558:
552:
548:
544:
541:
539:
535:
531:
526:
523:
519:
516:
514:
513:
503:
502:
501:
498:
497:
492:
485:
482:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
463:Oldest_people
459:
457:
454:
452:
451:
441:
437:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
413:
412:
411:
406:
403:
399:
394:
391:
390:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
364:
361:
358:
357:
351:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
319:
315:
312:
308:
305:
303:
299:
295:
292:, fails GNG.
291:
288:
287:
283:
279:
267:
262:
259:
255:
243:
238:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
223:
213:
209:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
163:
160:
159:Find sources:
155:
151:
147:
144:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
117:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
95:
92:
89:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:WP:Notability
74:
72:
68:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1611:
1608:
1578:
1555:
1505:
1488:
1437:
1415:
1392:
1386:
1367:
1351:
1322:
1295:
1234:
1184:
1176:
1147:
1105:
1049:
1019:
998:
971:
921:
884:
851:
818:
779:
761:
722:
685:
665:
640:
628:
587:
569:
545:for failing
542:
530:PatGallacher
524:
505:
487:
483:
460:
443:
431:
392:
353:
326:
306:
289:
277:PEANUTBUTTER
253:PEANUTBUTTER
219:
207:
201:
193:
186:
180:
174:
168:
158:
145:
75:
64:
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1489:Weak delete
1269:a landslide
1228:You are an
1046:WP:ONEEVENT
1044:Why ignore
994:WP:ONEEVENT
918:WP:ONEEVENT
643:Theopolisme
547:WP:ONEEVENT
461:Merge with
436:WP:ONEEVENT
398:Sue Rangell
350:Tokyogirl79
184:free images
54:WP:ONEEVENT
1356:WP:ONEVENT
1333:. BTW the
1331:WP:ONEVENT
1208:good faith
788:WP:ONEVENT
471:CorporateM
1617:talk page
1339:ww2censor
1265:a plumber
1261:pollution
792:WP:ORPHAN
37:talk page
1619:or in a
1587:WP:BIO1E
1442:Yeller21
1300:Yeller21
1239:Yeller21
1189:Yeller21
1152:Yeller21
1110:Yeller21
1054:Yeller21
1003:Yeller21
976:Yeller21
926:Yeller21
889:Yeller21
856:Yeller21
823:Yeller21
727:Yeller21
690:Yeller21
630:Relisted
592:Yeller21
556:Canadian
510:Yeller21
448:Yeller21
294:Hairhorn
143:View log
39:or in a
1510:Bearian
1506:Comment
1387:Comment
1352:Delete:
1323:Delete:
782:As per
762:Comment
434:- Does
355:(｡◕‿◕｡)
190:WP refs
178:scholar
116:protect
111:history
1230:WP:SPA
1024:SIGCOV
780:Delete
767:Safiel
543:Delete
525:Delete
440:WP:GNG
432:Delete
417:Snappy
374:Safiel
314:Snappy
311:WP:GNG
309:- per
307:Delete
290:Delete
226:Safiel
222:WP:GNG
162:Google
120:delete
67:WP:GNG
50:DELETE
1593:Trevj
1533:Sionk
1493:Sionk
495:Mate1
490:Royal
268:. ★☆
244:. ★☆
205:JSTOR
166:books
150:Stats
137:views
129:watch
125:links
82:Panyd
16:<
1598:talk
1537:talk
1514:talk
1497:talk
1472:talk
1422:talk
1399:talk
1354:, a
1343:talk
1329:and
1327:WP:N
1281:talk
1257:here
1216:talk
1177:Note
1133:talk
1100:See
1088:talk
1082:. --
1036:talk
1020:Keep
945:talk
907:talk
874:talk
841:talk
809:talk
784:WP:N
771:talk
745:talk
708:talk
675:talk
666:Keep
650:talk
617:talk
578:talk
570:Keep
561:Paul
551:WP:N
534:talk
484:Keep
475:Talk
421:talk
393:Keep
378:talk
335:talk
327:Keep
318:talk
298:talk
271:DUCK
247:DUCK
230:talk
198:FENS
172:news
133:logs
107:talk
103:edit
58:here
1591:--
1581:to
1563:bli
1375:bli
1273:war
1028:GNG
280:☆★
256:☆★
212:TWL
141:– (
1600:)
1589:.
1566:nd
1560:ar
1557:St
1554:-
1539:)
1531:.
1516:)
1499:)
1474:)
1440:Ol
1424:)
1401:)
1378:nd
1372:ar
1369:St
1366:-
1345:)
1298:Ol
1283:)
1271:,
1267:,
1263:,
1237:Ol
1218:)
1187:Ol
1179:-
1150:Ol
1135:)
1127:--
1108:Ol
1090:)
1052:Ol
1048:?
1038:)
1001:Ol
974:Ol
947:)
924:Ol
909:)
887:Ol
876:)
854:Ol
843:)
821:Ol
811:)
794:.
786:,
773:)
747:)
725:Ol
710:)
688:Ol
677:)
619:)
590:Ol
580:)
536:)
508:Ol
477:)
446:Ol
423:)
402:✍
380:)
337:)
320:)
300:)
274:IS
250:IS
232:)
192:)
135:|
131:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
1596:(
1535:(
1512:(
1495:(
1470:(
1420:(
1397:(
1341:(
1279:(
1214:(
1131:(
1086:(
1034:(
1026:/
943:(
905:(
872:(
839:(
807:(
769:(
743:(
706:(
673:(
653:)
647:(
615:(
576:(
532:(
473:(
419:(
405:✉
376:(
333:(
316:(
296:(
228:(
216:)
208:·
202:·
194:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
164:(
156:(
153:)
146:·
139:)
101:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.