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 no consensus to delete, after extended discussion. bd2412T 03:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia and original research Spiderone 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a spurious list of no value NealeFamily (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article conveys significant information that conforms to WP:5P1, information that would not be available in any other WP article. Without this article, one would have no way of easily figuring out that there were once 12 living PMs at a time, much less to know how frequent an occurrence that is. This information is attributable if not attributed in the words of WP:OR. The additional information - numbers alive at each moment - is easily derived by simple calculation (WP:CALC). Hence, this is by no means WP:OR. YBG (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I add that the proposal to delete this article but leave the corresponding Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Living presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States articles unnominated leaves WP open to a charge of being UK- or US-centric. YBG (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an assumption. This article was nominated based on the expected outcome of the Australian prime ministers article. All articles should be considered on their own individual merits not because something else similar exists. Ajf773 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD for the US Presidents list (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States) (a strong keep) has many arguments that apply equally to this article. The arguments that do not directly apply to this one are the arguments that cite specific discussions in the popular press. This may be because such discussion has not taken place in the NZ press, but without access, I have no way of knowing. YBG (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The variation in numbers of living presidents is not shown adequately in any other article, and this article presents readers with a valuable look at the topic. Bryson 85 (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YBG's arguments. Atchom (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the age lists do not easily or clearly show the same information. Closeclouds (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So? Is it actually encyclopedic or just trivia? Ajf773 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is refuting the assertion in the nomination that this page doesn't offer anything substantial that List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand doesn't already. YBG (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article tells me how many are now alive (8), but gives me no idea about how many were alive at times in the past. Is 8 significant? Has it occurred before? This cannot be easily answered by any other article. Radio NZ had a podcast and book with interviews of five former PMs; without this article it would be difficult to know that these five were at one time the only living former PMs. In 2017 four former PMs of different parties made a statement about refugees; five years from now, how can someone know if this was all of them or only some of them? It would seem that former PMs have some significance in NZ if no formal role in government. WP should fulfill its role here and provide this information on an historical basis. A paper encyclopedia would have to make editorial decisions based on limited space available, but WP:NOTPAPER. YBG (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it cannot be answered by any other article, or any independent sources (of which there are none), then it's probably not a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st point If it cannot be answered by any other article is an argument for keeping, not for deleting.
The 2nd point ... or by any independent sources ignores WP:CALC, which says Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Simple comparison of accession and death dates would seem to meet the definition of "routine" or "simple" calculations.
WP:5P1 says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not ... an indiscriminate collection of information ... The crux of this is whether this article is an indiscriminate collection of information; Ajf773 says it is, I say not. One deletionist argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:OTHER, which is to say, that because Living presidents of the United States exists, this has no bearing on whether Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand should or should not exist. I note that both WP:OTHER* links are links to essays, not links to policy. Further, the crux of the essay is that the OTHERSTUFF may exist in error, and so cannot be used as an argument to keep. As I can understand it, comparing this article to the US article is useful for several reasons. This article may be a reasonable candidate for deletion if (1) the US presidents article should not exist; or if (2) former NZ PMs are less significant than former US presidents; or if (3) former NZ PMs are less significant in NZ than former US presidents are in the US. But, as I see it, none of these three points are true, and so, the existence of the comparable US article positively argues for the inclusion of this article in our encyclopedia.
In your words "Wikipedia is not ... an indiscriminate collection of information ...". This is a good example of indiscriminate information. No evidence of notability has been provided other than there are similar articles that exist. For your information, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED so we must assess the article on its individual merits. Ajf773 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per YGB's well-reasoned argument. It is a useful and detailed resource. The fact that this information cannot be covered in another article (without losing proportionate focus) is a strong argument for retaining this separate article. --Hazhk (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you, YGB and other commenters are missing the point that the article is unsourced and has no independent sources claiming the notability of who was alive during another PM's tenure. Notability is not inherited due to the fact a similar article on US presidents or UK prime ministers exists. By using other articles (tertiary sources) to make a calculated synthesis this is essentially trivia. Also WP:USEFUL and WP:EVERYTHING is not a valid reason for retention of an article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have not ignored the lack of sources. As mentioned above, the raw data is clearly attributable if not attributed; the solution to this is to add sources, not to delete the article. Furthermore, WP:EVERYTHING and WP:USEFUL are both found on an essay page clearly labeled This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Furthermore, merely saying "it is trivia" does not make it trivia - and by the way, found in the same essay page is WP:ITSCRUFT, recommending that "Delete as trivia" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. As regards WP:NOTINHERITED, this link points to a section labeled Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy. It only applies to arguments to avoid in AfDs. Particularly interesting is the hidden comment within the wikimarkup from that section <!-- Section is notoriously and broadly misapplied as a content rule -->. So as I understand it, the comparison to Living presidents of the United States is not to be ignored out-of-hand, nor is it to be presumed that merely the existence of the other article justifies this one. This is why I went through the three points above in comparing this article to the US Presidents one: trying make an intelligent comparison to see if there might be something to learn from the comparison. YBG (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources has quite a bearing towards the notability of this topic, surely they can be added, if significant it may help the cause of the article. It also helps determine the difference between encyclopedic content and original research. There are sources on the Living presidents of the United States article which may suggest this is a notable and non-OR topic. But we don't assume topics written similar to this are automatically acceptable based on this. That's why we take the approach where each article should be discussed on its own merits. You're right, essays aren't policy and policy comes first when deciding outcomes, including the fundamental policy of WP:NOR. I see the Australia PM article was deleted recently btw. Ajf773 (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that when the US article passed AfD, the sources listed were quite skimpy, but it passed on the inherent notability of the topic without the support that has since been added. I note that most of the NZ PM list articles are like this one, attributable if not attributed. I also notice that the popular press articles referenced in the US article were written at the time when the previous record (from the Lincoln administration) was matched. I suspect that if the US stats matched the NZ stats, such articles would have been difficult if not impossible to find. But surely the notability of a list does not depend on whether the record breaking items on the list are early in the list or late in the list? As this article shows, it will take a while - or several votes of non-confidence - before the previous NZ record is broken. IMHO, nothing in this article violates WP:NOR, at least so far as I understand WP:CALC. Of course Ajf773 - as one of the active deletionists in that discussion - sees that the Aussie PM article was recently deleted. I, however, did not notice that discussion until after it was closed. I should have liked to have participated in that discussion; my participation here is in part to make up for my inaction there. YBG (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is WP:CALC only allows for routine calculations, such as calculating someone's age, adding a table of powers to the power of two table, or inferring a team has been qualified to the next stage of a competition. I haven't found a single article that has been kept for failing WP:OR but passing WP:CALC, and I searched through all 1,157 instances of its use on Wikipedia. There's a lot of information on talk pages discussing WP:CALC, showing it's for content issues on pages and not really a notability marker - further proving the calculations here, as they stand given the sourcing, fail WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyertalk 07:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some sources that might reasonably be added to the article.
An RNZ podcast was made of interviews of all five ex-prime ministers.(https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ninth-floor-sir-geoffrey-palmer-ck-201693) But midway through the interviews, the sitting prime minister resigned, subsequently declining to participate as the 6th ex-PM.(The 9th Floor, p. viii)
I have not found a convenient single source for the death dates; I think it best not to include individual sources for death dates; I note that they are attributable, even if not attributed in the words of WP:OR.
As to the ordering of the dates, the intervals between dates and the specific individuals alive during those periods, this is WP:NOR, covered under the WP:CALC policy.
I have added most of the references above; this at least begins to show that in the recent past former PMs are considered to have at least an informal role in NZ and some people have counted their number. The article could be further improved by eliminating most of the "statistics" section, specifically the coincidental information about the number of ex-PMs dying during a given year or during a given PMs tenure and about long gaps between PMs deaths. I deleted that information once, but my deletion was reverted by an IP editor. I hope that information is again deleted in order to futher improve the article. I will do it myself after a consensus is reached in the talk page discussion (see below). YBG (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how these references add any value to the article. They are snippets from media outlets from 2017 ... there is a whole history of content to cover, and they only just smack of WP:RECENTISM. Ajf773 (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the effects of recentism, I have no access to media from 1947 to read about the death of George Forbes (New Zealand politician), but it would be very surprising to find no mention of it being the death of the last living former PM. Someone with access to NZ libraries could help by checking this out; similarly the 1950 death of Peter Fraser, and the 1968 death of Walter Nash. YBG (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Participants in this discussion may have an interest in whether the article should include information about future PMs or about coincidental events like the number of deaths during a particular year or particular premiership or the time between consecutive deaths. My removal of such information was subsequently reverted by an IP editor. Whatever your opinion on this information, and whatever your opinion about the deletion of the article, I assume all editors want to improve this encyclopedia and so I encourage your participation in the discussion I started at Talk:Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand § Trimming stats. Thank you. YBG (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Sweden article AfD closed as delete. Ajf773 (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising given (1) less interest in Swedish topics at en-wiki and (2) the apparent lack of a comparable article in the Swedish WP. But certainly no reason to infer that this article should be deleted from en-wiki. YBG (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I don't like how so much focus has been on other articles and how they turned out, but with the addition of sources by YBG, along with their arguments, I think it makes sense to keep the article. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 10:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am inclined to delete as unencyclopedic, and I would offer the same view on the US presidents list. While some people may find this interesting, it isn't something covered by reliable sources, and seems just a rather random combination of presidents and retired presidents who happended to be still alive while the former was in office. Obviously the birth and death dates of each president, and their terms of office are relevant, but to combine them together like this seems excessive. --Michig (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YBG's arguments and evidence of notability. I argued for Keep of the Australian list on similar grounds, that the topic of living former PMs is notable, and it is not accessible from the List of PMs. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explain the evidence of notability please ... Ajf773 (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sources don't seem to talk specifically about living former Prime Ministers at different points in history and are more about discussions with and involving the current living former prime ministers than anything documenting all living prime ministers throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:1D85:6927:6EAC:2E02 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the Sweden and Australia lists, this article is original research and the sources fail WP:GNG since they don't actually cover the topic of when the prime ministers were living or not. None of the sources discuss the group as a set - they just discuss former prime ministers. SportingFlyertalk 04:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If articles such as Living Presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States can remain intact as is, then I can't see why this article should be any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.223 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That essay begins by saying In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. So, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself declares that making such comparisons can be valid or invalid. Some contributors to this AfD believe that it is helpful to make comparisons to similar pages that exist, others do not, and quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when anyone mentions the US Presidents or VPs articles. Some contributors to this AfD have mentioned similar pages that have been deleted, generally without overtly claiming that a different deletion supports this deletion.
WP:OTHERSTUFF goes on to state When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. *** Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. This is why believe it is helpful to compare this article to the US articles and to take the 5 pillars into consideration.
Furthermore, the OTHERSTUFF essay itself includes WP:SSEFAR (some stuff exists for a reason) which says This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. As I understand this, it means that the OTHERSTUFF essay is not a reason to completely disregard the presence or absence of other articles. Likewise, one cannot merely cite the existance of US OTHERSTUFF as a reason for retention, nor can one merely note the deletion of Australian or Swedish OTHERSTUFF and hold that as a reason to blindly delete the article currently under consideration.
That's exactly correct, and is exactly what the unsigned IP did. The conversation needs to be about this article and whether or not it is sourced properly. But the fact another similar article which is sourced properly was kept is informative, and two other similar articles which were not sourced properly is also informative - and there haven't been any arguments here that say this particular article is properly sourced. (I'm happy to change my vote to keep if you can find a source which definitively shows this isn't WP:OR, but none of the keep votes to date have done that - the sources still talk about New Zealand prime ministers, but don't show the notability of the overall topic.) SportingFlyertalk 03:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per YBG's well constructed arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.2.16 (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An IP user with just one edit is such a valuable contribution to this article, NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP's could also act as sockpuppets. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand why many people dislike trivia on Wikipedia, but IMHO it can be OK, provided that
It's correct information, and kept up-to-date in a timely manner,
It's not misleading in any way, and
It doesn't distract from more 'serious' information.
All of these apply here. In general, with online storage being cheap, the burden of proof for deleting a Wikipedia page should be on the people who propose its deletion. I don't think they've done so here. Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually given any valid reason for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I believe that the burden of proof for deleting a Wikipedia page should be on the people who propose its deletion, not on those who propose keeping it. I guess that makes me an 'inclusionist'. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2018 (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.