Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest United States Senators

List of the oldest United States Senators

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

There is no encyclopedic value to this list. Living a long time has no relationship to spending time in the US Senate at some point. It appears to attempt to cover every Senator that reached their 90th birthday. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your definition of non-encyclopedic is quite expensive. While you can argue as such, the limited and not very strict guidance given on what qualifies as a non-encyclopedic topic does not back up your point. Star Garnet (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Specific nonencyclopedic topics include non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Senators are an encyclopedic topic, but their longevity is trivia and completely unrelated to their notability. Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list qualifies as an excessive list of statistics (except that the statistic is irrelevant.) Wikipedia is also not any of a very long list of terrible ideas. If this is notable, then why not have a List of the oldest child prodigies or List of the oldest mineralogists? Pburka (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL explains that "it's useful" isn't a good argument, and WP:LISTN explains why lists like this one aren't notable. Pburka (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an ongoing edit war on this page about whether User:Dangermouse600 is a WP:SPA. DM600 edits almost exclusively on the topic of longevity, but the account wasn't recently created and has contributed meaningful edits outside of WP:AFD. Whether or not DM600 qualifies as a SPA isn't very important, so I suggest dropping it. Pburka (talk) 01:40, 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) 01:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]