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. Near unanimous consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany[edit]

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

Set of inherently subjective opinion polls about undefinable and time-related qualities such as "success" and "popularity" with an "aggregate" that essentially constitutes original research. I do not believe this to be an encyclopedic subject and would like further input on the matter from the community. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are articles for

which are more or less as good as this one and all of which are, I think, notable. There was a 2008, related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical rankings of United States Presidents. I think the arguments at that AfD more or less stand. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a collection of objective research, so that it is a valid article. How useful the information is remains another question. If this were to be deleted, so ought the other 5 listed in the preceding contribution: we should have all or none. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well referenced and the subjects of the polls are notable. This is not OR by the article creator, but is a synthesis of a number of reputable polls. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'd prefer to see scholarly rankings similar to those in other articles if possible. Mélencron (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This research, while ultimately the result of accumulating opinions, is undoubtedly of interest to readers. I really don't see a compelling enough reason to delete it. Dustin (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is more a pull together of various polls and sources not opinion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have these for many countries' leaders — they are usually well-sourced. I'd be fine with a larger conversation about the usefulness of these articles, but they don't appear to be much of a problem, and bringing them one at a time to AFD probably isn't the way to do it. Brad v 03:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely WP:OR. It is not the job of Wikipedia to condense or summarize different sources in this way. If this article is to remain then Wikpedia should simply report the results of the polls and not attempt to weigh and rank results from different sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 13 January 2017 (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.