Talk:Domingo Villa Avisencio/@comment-33034960-20191214153556/@comment-27547506-20191214163058

Blaz,

I know that very well, at the end I'm here longer than you. That's why I won't delete 1910 from this article (for now, we should wait for the GRG's (or even GWR's) decision on this case. I agree that we should respect the source that states 1910, even though I know why 1910 is mentioned there instead of 1906 or some other year, but again, we should respect that source.

For a long time, Maggie Kidd's birthdate was listed as "1904/1905" due to original research, which can be useful at some times even though there was no sources for 1905 up until her age was validated by the GRG. In Maggie Kidd's case, she would've been the doyenne of USA, or just a supercentenarian. In Mr. Villa's case, he would've been the WOM, or a centenarian close to 110. I will edit his birthyear to be "1906/1910" for now, and lock this article until the official decision is made. Admins can correct anything if they don't like it, that's why they're admins.

But I need to tell you something else, there's much more original research on Gerontology Wiki than you think. For example, when a person is debunked or exaggerated, even though he/she is from a country with a lot of real supercentenarians, the question mark will be added to his/her birthyear, check Lucy Mirigian. Original research in small amounts can be useful for some articles.