Talk:List of unvalidated deceased supercentenarians/@comment-31321778-20170801001205/@comment-31321778-20170808031620

Thanks Robert. All totally agreed, but it doesn't actually (as far as I can see) challenge my point. I was referring only to the cases that are deemed sufficiently robust that editors here, who as far as I can see are all very well-informed as to how to weed out false claims, have decided to add to THIS page, rather than elsewhere on the site. I am basing my assessment that cases which make it to this page are very likely to be true on the fact that I have not seen a single case here that was removed on the basis of a discovery that it was invalid (or even insufficiently robust to justify having been included here in the first place had the new info already been known), nor on the basis that it reached the 115 threshold for transfer to the "claims" page. (Indeed, I believe that no one other than Gabarro has ever appeared on this page with "unvalidated" status at an age over 112.) Since the page has existed for a few years now, that seems to be a reasonable justification - no?