Deletion of List of oldest twins

Comment: per nom & Delete votes being OR ErrORs: There is no substantiating evidence or even qualification added to the nom's assertion of , but there is in the comments below, and they, and most AFDs that listed OR as a rationale contain these errors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Lots of OR sourced to a site (twinstuff.com) that obviously is not a |reliable source(see also discussion at N). Wile it is true that there has been some scientific use of twins in longevity studies, none of those are about ''specific'' pairs of twins, nor are they about ''the oldest twins''. Such studies look at intra-twin pair correlations on life span and such and study large groups. The list is also arbitrary, as there are no clear inclusion criteria. When are twins listed? When they get older than 100? 105? 110? 95? 98.3? As Griswaldo says, the sources (apart from the non-reliable twinstuff.com) are all minor local items about a pair of twins turning 100. That's not even significant coverage for that particular pair of twins, let alone for a "list of oldest twins". Ornstein's remark (about one primary source which maintains the list) is as strong a condemnation of an article as I have seen for a long time in any AfD, that's almost the very definition of OR. I realize a lot of people like this kind of lists, but "I like it" is as much of an argument to avoid in an AfD as "I don't like it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)