Thread:930310JL/@comment-258494-20161205020851/@comment-258494-20161206143204

930310JL wrote: I do not agree with you on this since this is becoming Wikipedian where you can be included on lists just by having a claim. If every unvalidated case is to be included, they will heavily outweigh the validated claims and these lists will become worthless.

Clearly, you don't understand the purpose of this Gerontology Wiki.

The purpose was to make it a place similar to Wikipedia but where the rules are applied in such a fashion that we don't delete mini-bios for "not being notable" and don't delete flags, etc. I think the Gerontology Wiki has shown tremendous progress since August 2015, when the mission to re-invigorate it began.

Right now, YOU are MISUSING the "unverified" category to mean "already validated by you (or others and you know about it) but hasn't gotten through the GRG system yet" rather than what it's supposed to mean: "not validated but enough sourcing to support that the claim exists, there's a date of birth, and the claim is not frvilous or obviously fraudulent" (in which case it would go to incomplete/fradulent cases).

Now, I'm not stupid. I can tell that a case such as "George Feldman" is going to be more likely to be true than a case from India, prima facie. But that's not a good enough reason to exclude unvalidated cases which are UNRANKED (or not supposed to be) and color-coded as "UNVALIDATED".

Finally, it's a good idea to have some questionable cases in the "Unvalidated" category. If every "unvalidated" case is later validated, then there's no purpose to have it, is there?Ryoung122 (talk) 14:32, December 6, 2016 (UTC)