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. Sandstein 12:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-living state leaders[edit]

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

What possible reason is there to assemble an WP:OR list of state leaders of modern time by age? Do we need to know that according to the Wikipedia editors (for there are no RS for this) that Camille Huysmans Belgium Prime Minister (1946–1947) Lived from 1871-1968 totalling 96 years, 273 days making this person the 69th longest lived state leader? How can we prove that given there have been many state leaders in history? This is most certainly very inaccurate because it is very incomplete and there are no sources that suggest this type of list outside Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, this is an arbitrary intersection of topics. Longevity and political positions are unrelated topics. It's also WP:SYNTHESIS. And it's impossible to verify that these are, in fact, the longest-living state leaders without exhaustively examining all of the leaders who didn't make the list. Pburka (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While poorly cited (although virtually all information is gathered from two listed sources) and while I haven't been involved with the page for several years, going back through seven years ago, the page has been premised on verifiability. While it is indeed unlikely the Monsieur Huysmans is precisely the 69th longest lived state leader, he is indeed the 69th (+/- a few, at most) longest-lived leader listed on worldstatesmen or rulers (the two preeminent sites in lists of leaders) "whose age can be proven beyond reasonable doubt" via sources on his (and other leaders') pages. More or less, this means that this is as complete a list as can be compiled, and covers ~90%+ of leaders (the remainder being unverifiable Asian/African leaders) over the past two centuries, before which it was exceedingly uncommon for individuals to surpass the minimum age of entry (95+ years). As per WP:N, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not," which refers to, e.g., "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y," neither of which are anything close to this list. WP:N states that "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability," the first of which is broadly defined as a "list [that] may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Do what you like, but WP's rules seem to leave room for this page, and the nominator's comment is essentially WP:ATA USELESS. Star Garnet (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The list isn't WP:OR – all the information in it is verifiable, and assembling a list is a routine calculation, which is not counted as synthesis. Our notability guideline for lists is WP:LISTN, which states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". If it can be demonstrated that other sources have assembled lists of the longest-living state leaders, then the article should be kept. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly defining list with inclusion criteria of notable individuals easily meeting WP:SAL. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes LISTN. Clearly not OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of world leaders by countries visited or [[List of world leaders by height] would be better topics because these criteria are more connected to their world leader status then how long they managed to live, often after they left office. Even more useful would be Longest serving world leaders because that relates directly to their time in power. As this list is defined a person could be in power for 3 day, be ousted in a coup, then live to the unremarkable age 97 and be on the list. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a whole host of arguments against this point, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins. Countries visited would immediately be deleted as simply impossible, and by height would be woefully incomplete and filled with exaggerations (from 'reliable' sources), two points on which the nominated article stands strong. Yes, it was right to delete the List of oldest NHL players, as it was based on unreliable sources and woefully incomplete information, and yes, it was right to delete the List of oldest CEOs as that's unknowable. But keeping this page is far more similar to keeping the oldest living MLB players (1st, 2nd), the largest reasons for which is verifiability and notability of listees. Star Garnet (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCzolgolz (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic list that is a perfect example of an appropriate standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of the oldest people who happened to have been state leaders. At least list of state leaders by length of reign would make some sense to connect the two. You could create lists of the oldest people by every single profession if you wanted to. Does it really matter that Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum who served in office for two months is at the top of this list just because of his longevity? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there is nothing here but WP:ATA USELESS. And there are already three lists dealing with the stated topic. Star Garnet (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
data on world leaders is extensively tracked in some good relivent ways like longest time in office, youngest in office, oldest in office and other ways directly tied to service [1] with this topic being the outlier. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a patently misleading statement, given that the page only links to nine lists, including this and a similar one. There should be many more, and the fact that they do not exist is not an argument to narrow the already minimal scope of these lists. Star Garnet (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I can understand the rationale behind nomination, a Google search does seem to indicate that this is a topic that generates enough interest to support an article on Wikipedia; for example this study was picked up by numerous news organizations. Canadian Paul 20:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. This is the best keep argument I've seen based on policy. I still think notability is tenuous, and verifiability impossible in its current form, but this is interesting evidence that the cross-categorization isn't completely arbitrary. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That study is interesting- not exactly about this topic but it concluded getting elected to head of state shortens your life. This still seems like a cross catagorization and OR as editors pull together birth and death dates of some quite obscure world leaders and debate if person x lead a country or not. Very strange. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons cited above, the only reason to delete is "not useful". It is encyclopedic, and this page is littered with examples of WP:ATA USEFUL. There is no reason to delete, so despite some slightly shaky arguments I would go with keep. RailwayScientist (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2016 (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.