Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living United States senators: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:00, 29 September 2021

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. I have to discount opinions that are basically only attacks on those who are of a different view, such as the opinion by Folengo; see WP:NPA. Sandstein 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-living United States senators

[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)

Similar to the recently deleted List of oldest living United States governors (discussion).

The first section of the list is a very confusing table of historical holders of the record for "longest-lived former senator," a title that appears to have been invented by some Wikipedia editors. The start and end dates list the time period during which the person was the record holder. This topic appears to be a completely original invention, and is certainly non-notable.

The second section of the list ranks former senators who actually are living by their age.There's no evidence that this ranking is notable, and it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired. It's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of office holders and longevity.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, similar case to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_oldest_living_Major_League_Baseball_players, trivial information with arbitrary and nonsensical criteria. Dronebogus (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added two more similar lists of Indian politicians to this nomination. pburka (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:LISTN and is WP:TRIVIA. There are some sources approaching discussing this for US senators but I do not thinks these are reliable nor provide WP:GNG. There are established terms for this kind of thing like Father of the House but the categories nominated are not a thing that reliable sources discuss. More examples of LISTCRUFT. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this fails the trivia rule. The article specifically says, "However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." This list seems selective and has a narrow theme. I don't see a proposal for another, better way to present this information.
Keep: STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5FB0:5B90:EC44:551A:B198:6FF5 (talk • contribs)
Delete: clearly a case a of cross categorisation. Fails WP:LISTN defcon5 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These list has been maintained for many years from readily available information by people who obviously care about this information being included and that alone should prove "there's a market for it". Whether or not it is here should not be up to those who don't care. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn’t how it works. We aren’t trying to sell a product here; popularity is irrelevant. Dronebogus (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING is not considered a valid argument in AFD. 2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Stop trying to delete all of these perfectly fine pages. This is annoying! See the delete discussion about the oldest living president for more info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:5cb4:9158:86e2:784d (talk) 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given that there have been thousands of congressmen, but less than 50 presidents, comparing a list of longevity for each seems like false equivalence.2601:241:300:B610:74AB:87B7:9FD8:AA37 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the American system, the US Congress is equally as important as the US president. The linked discussion already addressed many concerns brought up here, so I don't see a problem with including it.
    - Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is considered an argument to avoid in these discussions.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a direct quote from your link: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."
- The specific criteria concerning that argument is Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF, which is not considered a valid argument.2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no evidence that "oldest living person who happened to have been a member of the national legislature at some point during their lives" is a notable distinction backed up by reliable sources.2601:241:300:B610:74AB:87B7:9FD8:AA37 (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a source from about 10 years ago with similar information to the US Senate article. https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11850515
- This article talks about the seven oldest living US Senators. https://newjerseyglobe.com/campaigns/the-time-a-staffer-leapfrogged-his-boss-to-a-u-s-senate-seat/
- This article talks about Lester L. Wolff, who was until recently the oldest living US Representative. It specifically mentions that fact in the article. The author writes, "Born in 1919, Mr. Wolff was the oldest living former member of the House of Representatives." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/lester-l-wolff-influential-former-congressman-dies-at-102.html
  - The first article seems to be a Wikipedia mirror. The rest of the sources could potentially be added to the article if reliable, as the senate article currently lacks sources. Though many items would still be unsourced, primarily with regards to the older entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.251 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdates of all members of both Houses are routinely published by official sources,e.g. https://bioguide.congress.gov and that a given date is before or after another date should never need a "source".96.250.80.27 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdates may be sourced, but the dates in which they became were the oldest are not. For example, Elihu Root being born on February 15, 1845 may be sourced, but is him becoming the oldest senator on April 12, 1933 sourced? 2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that just be the incumbent oldest living senator's death date in almost all cases????

That would seem to be Wikipedia:SYNTH, which is discouraged on the site. Specifically the policy says "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." 2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not synthesis; the sources for these death dates exist on the pages of the various US Representatives and US Senators. See Wikipedia:Calculations

The birth death dates may be sourced, but the order of who was the oldest amongst the then living current and former senators is something that only apparent by determining who was alive on each day and how old they were, which is more than what the sources indicate with birth and death dates. 2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From Wikipedia:Calculations "calculating a person's age is almost always permissible."

The issue is ultimately whether or nor who is "the longest-living United States senators among those currently living (incumbent or former) and a list of the individuals who, at the time of their deaths, were the longest-living United States senators among those current or former senators then living" is ultimately a notable topic. As the dicssuic shows, people have differing opinions on the matter, so it will ultimately be up to the closer to decide.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what other arcane rules you are referring to; I honestly don't care. I just want to stop this useful page from being deleted. I have tried to address the others' complaints as well as possible even when the complaints seemed silly or minor to me. I just think there should be a strong bias against deleting pages that provide useful information and have analogues.

Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL is not considered a valid argument in AFD discussions.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally was just explaining that I don't want the page deleted. I'm not trying to violate your rules (although they do seem arbitrary).

They aren't my rules, they're the rules of the wiki. Since we both have strong opinions on the matter, I'll leave the issue be and let others decide what should be done.2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(So where does one go to overturn these obtuse rules before more good articles are sacrificed at their Satanic altar? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Fritz Hollings's website explicitly mentions that he was the oldest living US Senator in 2019. The author writes, "The senator, who currently is the nation’s oldest living former United State Senator, has a long legacy of accomplishments that helped South Carolina and the nation." https://fritzhollings.com/2019/01/01/happy-birthday-senator-hollings/
- This article mentions right away that Strom Thurmond was the oldest living US Senator in 1996. The author writes, "The oldest living United States Senator opens the session of the world's greatest deliberative body with two raps of his white gavel. "The Senate is now in session," twangs Strom Thurmond, the president pror everybody, a "How'ya doin'" here, a "Mighty glad to see ya" there, a pat on the back, a firm grip on the upper arm." https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-03-04-1996064043-story.html
  - That article refers to him being the oldest serving senator, not the oldest living senator among both the then current and former senators. At the time the article was published, former senator Jennings Randolph, who was a few months older, was still alive.2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the complaints is "Similar to the recently deleted List of oldest living United States governors (discussion)." However, as others such as 2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670 (talk) have pointed out, "Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is considered an argument to avoid in these discussions." There needs to be a stronger reason to delete this than other stuff got deleted. Otherwise, there should be a bias toward keeping these pages. The complaint about the first section of the list is that it is "confusing" because it lists chronologically the "longest-lived former senator". The deleter alleges that the topic is "a completely original invention" and "certainly non-notable". However, several sources have been found and linked mentioning this title. Finally, the complaint about the second section of the list is that "it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired." I think this table could be shortened to maybe the 10 oldest living US Senators and included in this article. If it is not going to be included on this article, I would suggest including it in the Oldest people article in a similar format to the oldest man and oldest woman (one table for oldest all-time and another for oldest currently living).
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTSTATS. This is simply a trivial case study of "age at death" based on a specific set ("members of the US senate"/some other legislative bodies) which certainly has nothing to do with it. There might be a case for listing the oldest living senators somewhere, but that does not justify a list of the rest, which is indeed a completely original invention which fails WP:LISTN. The comparison with similar articles is actually warranted, since this all are based on the same idea, and so unless it can be shown that some exceptionally do meet the criteria, there's no reason to not delete them. I'll also note that many of the keep arguments are entirely unfounded, some of them are just "stop trying to delete these" without anything else whatsoever... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See this deletion discussion where your concerns are addressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
Strong delete per NLIST. Once they're out of office, nobody keeps track of how long they live: the two distinctions really have no connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because YOU don't keep track of the ages of former US Senators does not mean others do not keep track. In fact, several sources above have been found to keep track of former US Senators' ages and who the oldest US Senator or US Representative is.
Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "oldest living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of oldest people is constantly changing, yet the alleged difficulty of accuracy and verification is explained on the page. That would be a better option here as opposed to throwing up our hands and saying "just delete it". Just because a list is incomplete or can never be fully completed does not preclude a shortened or selective list on the same topic.
- See this deletion discussion at US Presidents where the consensus was IN FAVOR of KEEPING an oldest living US Presidents list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
- See also Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE
Delete Per the nom. The lists fail WP:NLIST due to being random cross-sections of career, age, and being alive. Wikipedia is also neither a WP:DIRECTORY nor a home for WP:TRIVA about the bygone careers of former public officials, and the articles contain a great deal of or are entirely WP:OR (ex. "Oldest senators (historic)"; the entire "List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha"). Newshunter12 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this violates Wikipedia:Trivia because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a selectively populated list with a narrow theme.
Keep. (Personal attack removed). There's the work of thousands behind these lists and they are being unrespectfully deleted for dubious (Personal attack removed) interpretation of "policies". Obviously this worsens the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia, but who cares until there are "policies". (Personal attack removed) Good day. --Folengo (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all four, echoing Folengo and others. Tintin 11:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Already mentioned several times above, this is just a cross categorization that provides no sources showing why these specific groupings passes WP:LISTN. Stating that one or two of the individuals on the list have a source stating that they, specifically, were one of the oldest living senators/etc. at the time does not justify these entire lists which, without sources discussing their status as the "longest-living X", is just WP:SYNTH. None of the keep votes above have addressed any of these concerns, instead relying on WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic DOES exist.
- Additionally, your link Wikipedia:Synthesis mentions that routine calculations such as the difference between a birth date and present or a birth date and a death date are entirely permissible and NOT reasons for deletion.
  - Again, some sources on the ages of a couple of the individual people on this list, which is all the sources above do, does not satisfy WP:LISTN for this topic, because none of them discuss this specific cross categorization specially as a group or set. And while calculating their ages based on their birth dates may not be WP:SYNTH, compiling that into a list article where there are no sources that actually discuss that data as the topic of "List of longest living X" is. Rorshacma (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list aids navigation and provides information meeting our list WP:LISTCRITERIA. It is not indiscriminate. I know this should not matter, but I could not resist checking views... 6,597 in July, 5,600 views in August and 8,544 so far this month. We should serve our readers. Lightburst (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on how it aids navigation? pburka (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said Keep all my rationale is pretty clear. Lightburst (talk) 00:10, 29 September 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.

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 *'''Delete''' Per the nom. The lists fail [[WP:NLIST]] due to being random cross-sections of career, age, and being alive. Wikipedia is also neither a [[WP:DIRECTORY]] nor a home for [[WP:TRIVA]] about the bygone careers of former public officials, and the articles contain a great deal of or are entirely [[WP:OR]] (ex. "Oldest senators (historic)"; the entire "List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha"). [[User:Newshunter12|Newshunter12]] ([[User talk:Newshunter12|talk]]) 23:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 **''I don't believe this violates [[Wikipedia:Trivia]] because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a selectively populated list with a narrow theme.''
-*'''Keep'''. Good to see you're going after the real villains. There's the work of thousands behind these lists and they are being unrespectfully deleted for dubious thick-headed interpretation of "policies". Obviously this worsens the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia, but who cares until there are "policies". Bureaucrats destroy everything they find. Good day. --[[User:Folengo|Folengo]] ([[User talk:Folengo|talk]]) 06:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. {{RPA}}. There's the work of thousands behind these lists and they are being unrespectfully deleted for dubious {{RPA}} interpretation of "policies". Obviously this worsens the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia, but who cares until there are "policies". {{RPA}} Good day. --[[User:Folengo|Folengo]] ([[User talk:Folengo|talk]]) 06:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' for all four, echoing Folengo and others. [[User_talk:Tintin1107|Tintin]] 11:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Delete All''' - Already mentioned several times above, this is just a cross categorization that provides no sources showing why these specific groupings passes [[WP:LISTN]].  Stating that one or two of the individuals on the list have a source stating that they, specifically, were one of the oldest living senators/etc. at the time does not justify these entire lists which, without sources discussing their status as the "longest-living X", is just [[WP:SYNTH]].  None of the keep votes above have addressed any of these concerns, instead relying on [[WP:ITSIMPORTANT]] arguments.  [[User:Rorshacma|Rorshacma]] ([[User talk:Rorshacma|talk]]) 16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)