Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest fathers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest fathers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The list as a whole is an original research. It is not full, as it contains mostly celebrities, and most of the entries are not medically sourced (therefore not sure).BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. What on earth is this? One of the weirdest articles I've seen to date. Fails GNG. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim substantially. I would put the lower limit at 80, as becoming a father in one's 60s or even early 70s is no longer a particularly remarkable thing. BD2412 T 00:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 08:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: The problem is that the list contains (famous) men who CLAIM to become fathers after a certain age. The only sure thing is usually the fact that their much younger wives became mothers... And, is it a coincidence that most of the fathers listed are notable for other reasons? BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to that quandary is to report whatever claims are set forth in reliable sources, and provide the same caveats the sources provide. BD2412 T 00:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's sourced well, and about notable people. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the article's refs can (and should) be improved, but the article is not "as a whole is an original research". As for the article not being complete, it is a classic example of a dynamic list which shall never be complete – which is no basis to delete it. There is a discussion on the page about raising the bar of entry to 75, which I support. --Voello _talk 02:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have noted my support for this proposition in that discussion. BD2412 T 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.