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. On a pure for/against basis, this is 4-4. However, of the delete votes, one actually cites an essay on poor "Keep" arguments, one offers no argument at all, and one is WP:PERX. On the other hand, the "Delete" site make uncontested and relevant policy-based arguments. Given the relative strength of the arguments made, deletion is the only option. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 100 oldest members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

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

Is this really a proper list? It's not a list of the oldest House members when they were serving (that's at List of the oldest living members of the United States House of Representatives). It's really just a list of the oldest people who happened to have been members of the House since their age isn't related to their service. This seems more like trivia to me, especially since it's entirely unsourced. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and how would a person verify this? Serving in the House and getting old are not related. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 29 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. Pburka (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to satisfy WP:LISTN. I checked Google with "Maurice Thatcher" "Cornelius Cole" oldest representatives, and it returned almost nothing. I don't think any reliable sources care about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~ Totally unnecessary list that is not encyclopedic. JTtheOG (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you review WP:USEFUL. Pburka (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is WP:USEFUL is an part of the essay titled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." You may want to rethink citing that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by this, too, but then I thought maybe he means that some of the delete arguments are invalid because they're not based on policy ("it's not useful"). However, I've yet to see any evidence posted here that it satisfies WP:LISTN. We need multiple independent, reliable sources that analyze the group as a whole. Unless one of the keep voters can find sources that do so, their votes are likely to be disregarded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most of the the keep arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders. This is not the strongest of list topics for cross categorizing, but not enough for deleting. Every entry can be referenced to a bio page and the ages are compiled from such. OR doesn't apply to this list in my opinion. There is clearly defined criteria for inclusion with no ambiguity. It's a list of people that are obviously notable and factoring in longevity which is at least arguably notable as well. I see no strongly compelling reason to delete this. RoadView (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In what respect is surviving to 95 years notable? Pburka (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Czolgolz (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RoadView. Star Garnet (talk) 08:18, 3 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.