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 delete. ✗plicit 02:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents/prime ministers by longevity (batch 3)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

All of these are typical content forks of relevant parent lists, with the problem that they're trivial cross-categorisations ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which are unambiguously statistical trivia unsupported by and not found (or likely to be found) in any other reliable sources (thus failing WP:V and WP:LISTN) and WP:OR (as something that is first published on Wikipedia is OR by definition). See also precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vice presidents of India by longevity; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German presidents by longevity; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heads of state of Bulgaria by longevity RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep all. These are good sortable tables with a lot of useful information. Heads of state and heads of government are important enough for such lists. Deletion makes WP worse, not better. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSIMPORTANT is rarely a good argument (ignoring that notability is not inherited), when this fails much more fundamental criteria, and these lists do not make WP better since they are statistical trivia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@gidonb @Andrew These tables, which all likely violate MOS:COLOR and have no sources whatsoever, add nothing of value to Wikipedia. You both are pretending its List of heads of state of Mexico and similar articles that have been nominated for deletion, not these WP:NOSTAT parody x lived xx,xxx thousands of days articles. The worthwhile articles like List of heads of state of Mexico have vastly more edits and contributors, pictures, reasonable stats like took/left office, and a little thing called sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "importance" is that of the heads of state and heads of government and seems not to be disputed above. It's true that their importance is not automatically inherited to longevity tables, good as they may be, however, by WP:NEXIST research, sources to support WP:LISTN and WP:V are actually common. Specifically when another head of state or government dies there is a detailed discussion in media nationally and at times worldwide about who still is alive and if they can attend the funeral. Also at the death of other dignitaries as the former heads of state/government remain important figures of the nations. In addition, the heads' opinions and support are in demand on a range of issues, including in books that combine these national figures. Other longevity data also gets discussed in sources. As Andrew correctly points out, this is an unnecessary destruction of data, (ab)using the fact that not all of these articles are sourced for all countries, instead of improving the referencing per WP:JUSTFIXIT and WP:PRESERVE. gidonb (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per our policy WP:PRESERVE and the good reasons given by gidonb. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidon hasn't given any good reason, nor is there anything here that should be kept on Wikipedia, and you know well your opinion on the matter has consistently been against the consensus of the very similar discussions listed. This is a fundamentally unencyclopedic topic, and no amount of thinly veiled WP:ILIKEIT can change that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb reason's are excellent as the lists in this case are highly respectable and encyclopedic. Consider Japan, for example. If you look at our main page currently, you'll see that we announce the latest Japanese PM and show his picture too. Such news is naturally empheral and will scroll off but we publish it regardless because it is the normal consensus to do this -- see the discussion. The corresponding list has existed since 2005 with over a hundred editors and hundreds of thousands of readers. The handful of deletionists who have suddenly embarked on this spree are comparatively insignificant and do not represent anything other than the decline of Wikipedia. "To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day." — Winston S. Churchill. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An inaccurate comparison between national elections and this statistical trivia (notability is not inherited) does indeed make your "vote" stand (with no pretense that its truly a !vote), but this is WP:NOTAVOTE, and nostalgic calls for days when this was a much less thorough work or WP:OLDARTICLE in no way change the fact this is fundamentally unencyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. Fails WP:V and WP:LISTN as all six articles are completely unsourced, with obvious serious WP:OR issues as well. It further fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY since the article is an unencyclopedic trivial cross-categorization of age and holding political office, and WP:NOSTATS by being just fluff like stating how many xx,xxx thousands of days each person was alive. The various related articles, such as List of heads of state of Mexico are all we need and of a far higher quality, not these redundant WP:TRIVIA regurgitations. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and for consistency due to the outcomes of these: batch 1 and batch 2. Ajf773 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that because just because other articles have been deleted, more articles must be deleted, sounds like circular reasoning to me. It also fails the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these had the exact same NOT problem, so the comparison is entirely valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These articles meet both WP:LISTN and WP:V. WP:NOT is not relevant and has not been raised in this discussion. Also, you are WP:BLUDGEONING under literally every opinion where someone writes something that does not meet your opinion that was already stated upfront in the intro. Why not provide others some space to explain their opinion?! Please note that you are unique here in bludgeoning under every opinion that disagrees with you and that ONLY a delete opinion did not receive a response! gidonb (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very valid argument when only three people have commented. And if you are down making unsupported assertions and to attacking the person and not the substance of my in-depth rebuttals, I don't have anything else to add. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that a certain argument sounds circular and unconvincing just as I received some comments under my opinion and was fine with that. Respondent can then explain their opinion better, just like I did. I'm happy to hear all opnions and many opinions. The fact that you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion here is, as I pointed out, not a good idea. The best response to this comment is not more bludgeoning. You are the nominator, NOT the moderator of the discussion here who can leave any comment under any opinion that does not agree with yours, then tell others not to express their opinion. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before you made your comment accusing me, I had only made three or four comments (and relatively short ones at that). And yet here you are taking all the speaking space in an attempt to shut me up. If you don't want me to point out obvious instances of WP:AADD and obvious instances of failing to address the WP:NOT nature of these lists, then don't make the same fallacious arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not accusations but friendly suggestions to allow everyone some space to express their opinion without immediate "rebuttals" by the nominator to all who dare to express a opinion different from his. It's a pattern also at your other nominations. I concentrate on the merits and have supported several of your nominations. Not this one as WP:LISTN is met. Instead of arguing with everyone, try to develop a good argument in the intro that convinces that you have thought this through and have done a solid WP:BEFORE following WP:NEXIST, i.e. haven't only looked for sources in the articles. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Newshunter12. The Keep votes are totally unpersuasive. --JBL (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep votes are variations of ILIKEIT (or, "I find it useful"). Sorry, gidonb, but what you call a circular argument really sounds more like jurisprudence to me. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, responding since you refered to me and tagged me. Just as you couldn't relate to my train of thought I couldn't relate to yours. It happens even between two people who so often think alike ;-) gidonb (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial list of trivia that fails NLIST and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What matters is what the person did when they were in office, not what they did and how long they lived after retirement. Perhaps a secondary remedy would be renaming the pages "list of presidents by the number of offshore accounts" using the Pandora papers. I wonder who would win. Joking, of course. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and the outcomes of the other discussions. These are unencyclopedic cross-categorisations, "List of X sorted by unrelated property Y". Reyk _YO! 08:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just worthless trivia.--Hippeus (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's fun but is it encyclopedic? That's not so obvious - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:54, 9 October 2021 (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.