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 orginally delete all - listcruft, changed to no consensus upon review.. – Will (message me!) 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity[edit]

After reading another AfD today, List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity, I was inspired to nominate these. Here's why
This is essentially a collection of trivia and has no apparent usefulness. The information is alreadly fully contained in another list. Also, the old "shoe size" analogy has been brought up a number of times, and hell, I think it's appropriate here. If you gave me 3 hours alone to think of a possible application for these lists, I would be dumbfounded. As much as I hate citing Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, this is exactly what it was created for. Here are some other pages I'm nominating:

• List of Austrian Chancellors by Longevity
• List of Austrian Presidents by longevity
• List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity
• List of German Chancellors by longevity
• List of Nobel Prize in Chemistry winners by longevity
• List of Nobel Prize in Literature winners by longevity
• List of Nobel Prize in Physics winners by longevity
• List of United States Presidents by longevity

AdamBiswanger1 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - of course! Wikipedia should be a place for masses of information. Where else in the www can I find lists of longevity which are regularly updated? Keep it!
• Keep the List of United States Presidents by longevity. There are lots of lists of United States presidents in various orders, so why can't we have this one?? Georgia guy 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. What makes the list of US Presidents by longevity inherently more notable than the other lists? --ColourBurst 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out the template at the bottom of List of Presidents of the United States. Did any of the other lists the template links to ever get put on Afd?? Georgia guy 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them, except perhaps height, have a clear and obvious use. That's why they're not of AfD. These have no use to anyone outside of writers for Trivial Pursuit AdamBiswanger1 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion Triviality is one of the strengths of the medium, If it's true, and verifiable I say let it be. There is far more innacurate and unverifiable articles than ones deemed purely trivial. FancyPants 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Kimchi.sg 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, very indiscrimate collections all. Recury 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Very interesting collections all. Ramseystreet 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Delete Nobel Prizewinners, Keep the rest. Much more interesting and encyclopaedic than, say List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders or List of minor Clone Wars battles. But, the fan world is more important here than the real one, so I expect them to go. Tevildo 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is not about the importance of the persons listed, but about the importance of their relative longevity. I fail to see any. --Huon 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all It is reasonable to quote trivia in a bio, such as X was the longest-lived of Y, and on reading that, I would like to link to a list of the Y's. The policy quoted by the originator doesn't explicitly rule out lists of trivia.--Rye1967 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All as per nom. This is ridiculous listcruft. Are we to have longevity lists for all categories of people - French tennis players by longevity or Chinese scholars by longevity? How about Mexican poets by weight or Indonesian military leaders by armspan. This kind of listcruft trivia may be trivially interesting but has no use encyclopedically or otherwise (what do the keep voters want to do? prove a correlation between the politicians' policies and how long they live? prove a correlation showing that winning a Nobel makes you live longer or shorter?) Bwithh 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My opinion is mainly based on the fact that, whenever a Chief Executive (for want of a more appropriate term) dies, is elected, or has a birthday, one of the first things the newspapers will point out is that he (or she) is the n'th longest-lived Chief Executive. I'll grant you the Nobel Prizewinners, but the relative ages of Chief Executives is something that's of general interest to the media, and (one assumes) to the general public. However, if the general consensus is to delete these lists, the corresponding lists of monarchs should go too - if longevity is generally _uninteresting_, then why should we acknowledge it at all?

Tevildo 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of that. Newspapers mention that a given ruler was the n'th longest-lived president? I don't want to be rude or incivil, but I highly doubt that is a common practice. AdamBiswanger1 22:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems odd to me, but I wouldn't have noticed this sort of fact, so I decided to look around a bit. I picked the death of Ronald Reagan, as I figured that'd be major and recent enough to have some reliable sites still available. [1] is a CNN.com story. I don't see anything about his longevity compared to other Presidents in it. [2] is a foxnews.com story which also fails to make such comparison. [3], from BBC News, mentions that Reagan was the oldest to take office, but fails to make a longevity comparison. I don't mean this proves that no news source ever makes reference to this sort of thing, but I don't believe it is a common practice. GassyGuy 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Bwithh Whispering 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• So somebody is going to update living holders of these offices on a daily basis? I don't think so. If it was the length of time in office it might have some meaning, as it is it's not even "shoe size," it's people with 10 toes by shoe size. Anyway who are these lists for, people who are numerically-challenged? Delete. --Richhoncho 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The UK list is updated monthly, which seems adequate to me. Tevildo 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per nom and Bwithh. Agent 86 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as trivial, but I would not be averse to this sort of restructuring of information to be included after the main list or something. There are an awful lot of existing lists that sort the same information in different ways. Would not be terribly disappointed if these disappear as the information contained within can fairly easily be recreated from existing birth and death dates in other tables. GassyGuy 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as trivial. The longest and shortest lived president information can go into the article on the U.S. president and it can be mentioned on Kennedy and Reagan's articles that they are the shortest and longest lived respectively. I suppose the same could be done for the other lists. -- Kjkolb 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The age of the ex-presidents is a media topic and was certainly discussed before Reagan died. Examples include this very on-point article from the Wall Street Journal (scroll to bottom) [4], The Washington Post ("At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected president. At 93, he was the oldest former president" [5], or this mention in Time [6], It was specifically mentioned in honorary House resolutions throughout the country [7], [8], [9] etc. If the info is worth noting for Reagan it should be true for the other presidents. It has also been a major topic with the Pope. Given that this is a global encyclopedia, we should also keep the other lists. --JJay 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that every single Pope except one has held office until they have died, so the end of term of their office coincides with their death. That's why age is non-trivially significant for the Pope - because people expect them to serve until they die. The modern US Presidency is limited to 2 terms (8 years) and they cannot serve again. The age of former Presidents is irrelevant to the US political system. The media talks about the age of former presidents, because - bluntly - its a game (for the news commentators) of wondering when they're going to die (especially in the case of Reagan, who had Alzheimer's) because when they die, it means a big media event and a state funeral. The comparative longevity as opposed to the anticipated deaths of former Presidents is marginal and trivial compared to that main consideration. The House resolutions are celebrating Reagan not-dying-yet not his winning-the-race-of-longevity-against-every-other-President-which-will-prove-his-ultimate-superiority. It's the same when we talk about our own elderly relatives. We're glad they've not passed on yet, but we're not expressing the hope that they "beat" everyone else in the longevity "contest". The WSJ column you cite is a humorous trivia piece about a humourous interview exchange. And in that specific Washington Post example you gave, they're emphasizing his age not his comparative longevity (if they were, there'd be a silly discussion of why Reagan is living longer than other Presidents blahblahblah)Bwithh 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points, certainly more insightful than "ridiculous listcruft". Thanks for the discussion of the Pope, although you might have noted that I mentioned that in passing, not unlike your more appropriate French tennis player and Mexican poet examples. You are certainly entitled to view the longetivity of the Presidents as "humorous trivia". However, I would beg to differ, not the least because comparative longevity has long obsessed the ex-Presidents themselves, for example John Adams, whose famous last words were "Thomas Jefferson survives" [10]. --JJay 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere probably is a category such as "List of popes by length of reign", or else there should be, so why not get rid of this junk and focus on that list, which is much more to the point. AdamBiswanger1 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment Found it. This article, List of 10 longest-reigning popes could be expanded and moved, thus making the papal longevity list useless (in my opinion). AdamBiswanger1 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all the ones on heads of government/heads of state per JJay. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Kjkolb and Bwithh. They're not encyclopedic, and (except in the case of individual recordholders) they bear no relation to what made the individual heads of state notable. Does anyone really envision someone waking up in a cold sweat wondering, "Holy crap, who was the 4th-longest-lived Austrian chancellor again?" As Kjkolb notes, the recordholders for longest and shortest lifespan, and maybe even longest among living presidents, warrant mention in their respective articles, but the comparative ages of all or a good number of them strikes me as, yes, listcruft. -- H·G (^words/_works) 03:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. AdamBiswanger1 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. As I wrote on the earlier AFD, multiple versions of the same list are a maintenance nightmare, and there's really no particular reason this information would be really useful. If figuring out the longest-lived Austrian chancellor (for example) is really important for someone, they can calculate it for themselves from the information already available on Chancellor of Austria. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the ones for heads of state. This is a common type of question which one would use an encyclopedia to answer. You can either be forced to do the math in your head, or the many WikiGnomes can maintain this list for us. Not like it has to be updated every day -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel you'd have trouble doing the math in your head, you could always use copy+paste into Excel/use a calculator/use a pen and paper/ask your mum or dad Bwithh 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...or check our article. --JJay 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now when I'm wondering who the seventh-longest lived Nobel Prize winner for physics is, I'll know right where to look. I wonder who had the largest shoe size... AdamBiswanger1 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oldest living President doing well" [11]- nothing about shoe size though... --JJay 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about the 8'th oldest? AdamBiswanger1 03:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll to bottom [12]. --JJay 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was in a newspaper, so it must be worthy of an article. AdamBiswanger1

Newspapers are perfectly valid sources at wikipedia and the WSJ is better than most. According to our article, the WSJ has a circulation of 2.6 million and serves a global elite (a readership profile of about 60% top management, an average income of $191,000, an average household net worth of $2.1 million). They don't just print anything. --JJay 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that they printed a table of the ages of the oldest-lived presidents, but I dont' understand how this illustrates that it is a matter of common concern and not more than a nice bit of trivia. AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already placed a number of links into this discussion showing that Presidential longetivity is frequently mentioned in the media. I have further pointed out how the issue of longetivity has been an issue for the presidents going back to Jefferson and Adams. I understand how some might find that trivial. However, I consider it just as valid as any other aspect of presidential scholarship. --JJay 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the first thing you do when a president dies? You mention how old he was. Of course the relative age of presidents comes up often, but that does not mean it is notable, and that does not make it more than trivia. I also cringe at the fact at such justifications being used for "List of Wimbledon champions by longevity" or something of the like. Lists arranged as such should have some value in their arrangement, i.e. why does it matter that Dwight Eisenhower(#13) lived longer than Andrew Jackson(#14)? Also, what about the other nominations up for deletion? AdamBiswanger1 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes up often it is "notable". Otherwise, it would not come up at all. Regarding "trivia", one man's trivia is another man's vital nugget of information. Every article here contains some element of trivia. If I looked at the articles you created, I would probably consider some to be trivial. I might also think that someone would have some use for the information. I didn't know that Andrew Jackson lived almost as long as Dwight Eisenhower. I think that is an amazing bit of information considering that Jackson was born in 1767, fought in a bunch of wars (like Ike) and was sick most of the time with TB. The ramifications of this type of thing for historians and president buffs are endless. Regarding the other nominations, I already pointed out that this is a global encyclopedia so we need the same lists for foreign heads of state. I can tell you that the same issues of longetivity are frequently raised in other countries (Churchill and Mitterrand immediately spring to mind). I will say that as a general rule group noms are a bad idea. --JJay 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong keep, The list of US presidents longevity is what brought me to Wipipedia in the first place. Now I know that James Polk was the shortest lived president not to be assasinated, and my life is better because of it. FancyPants 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't ya know! Its Gerald Ford's 93rd Birthday today! He and Reagan are the only US presidents to make it that long. Few more months and he will be longest lived.FancyPants 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the fact that he is the oldest living is covered round the world, so of interest to many --Rye1967 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Note I cordially invite all of you to put in your input at my new essay regarding things like this at Wikipedia:List guidelines reborn AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Certainly notable, however I wish we had some form of variables so that we would not have to manually update them periodically. I also oppose to a mass-deletion of articles unless there is a good reasoning for each of them individually, and not just a generalization. --Mrmiscellanious 03:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tag this bunch of garbage "Children's television series" FancyPants 04:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all though I doubt there is much use in recalculating them more than once every three months. -- User:Docu
• Delete all because of my disgusting lack of appreciation for human life. ~ trialsanderrors 11:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a oft discussed topic in the real world. Top leaders are heavily scrutinized and compared with their predecessors in all sorts of ways. This is much more notable than most articles on WP. NoSeptember 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and encyclopedic. Certainly more so than schoolcruft. ;)—Nightstallion (?) 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these high-maintenance lists appear to have been created just for the sake of having such lists - in other words, they are listcruft. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep all. The initial post is argumentative, at best. Poster claims "this is exactly what it was created for" yet none of the 11 bullets correspond to his notion of "a collection of trivia". While I'm snobbishly sympathetic to their cause, in the end it seems clear that poster and subsequent supporters are motivated by passions and/or agenda rather than the cited rules. If you ever do succeed in your quest to change the rules, then I'll switch to your side. KevinWho 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Kevin- It is not a quest to change the rules, but a quest to create rules when there aren't any. A clear violation in the absence of a specific ruling against it is not grounds for inclusion. But I suppose that this call for change is a foolish venture and we should simply live with the status quo. Remember that we are not mindless rule-followers, and we do what we believe is best for the encyclopedia. Remember the Pharisees? This is not to say that we are not to have the utmost respect and reverence to rules and guidelines, however you may want to take a look at WP:IAR to take in the spirit of Wikipedia since you are a newcomer. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I came upon this page out of my own interest and would feel sad to see it go. Ichelhof 07:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all-In least until "Wiki-Almanac" is created as a source for lists.--T. Anthony 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amending slightly. Thinking on the Pope one makes me think that if these survive they should be limited to just listing "ten longest lived" and "ten shortest lived." Also do we have one for monarchs as they, like Popes, often serve until death.--T. Anthony 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. --Richard 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per KevinWho. -- S Marshall 13:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all-Trivias are nice... twsjon

Note these two users have a combined edit total of under 30. AdamBiswanger1 23:20, 19 July 2006 (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.