Talk:Unverified longevity claims

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

redirect to Longevity claims, 15 August 2015, see discussion.
no consensus, 5 February 2015, see discussion.

Requested move 28 February 2015 edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Naturally, any claim that cannot be verified in RS cannot be included. However, this article discusses claims for which we can verify their existence using RS - the proposed title is not using "verified" in the sense of WP:V. As such, the opposing comment seems to be a good-faith misunderstanding of the intention of this RM, and I am closing this as move. If a better title is proposed, then of course that can be discussed. Sunrise (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incomplete longevity claims → Unverified longevity claims – These are historical claims that remain unverified. "Incomplete" is the term used by the website that tracks this, but "Unverified" is better in the encyclopedia. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The first relisting was one day after initial request. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Support. I don't know what "incomplete" means. Tiles should be obvious. Is their longevity incomplete, meaning they are now dead. Or does it mean the verification is incomplete.

Oppose. Unverified makes no sense here as anything that is not verified shouldn't be included at all. Unverified I'm assuming means not verified by the GRG which is replacing our own policies with the GRG's standards. You can at least call these claims of longevity where the claim itself is not complete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

They have reliable sources in the media claiming their age, they do not have reliable primary documents to confirm their exact birth date. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic