Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Walton Need some help? 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by longevity[edit]

List of United States Presidents by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I notice that an equivalent article was deleted recently. The consensus apparently reached there was that articles of this type are "unencyclopedic and redundant". TheCoffee 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, silly and per precedent. There's nothing notable about a comparison of Presidents' lifespans; it's not as if lifespan has anything to do with being President. —Cuiviénen 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- tell John McCain that lifespan has nothing to do with President, because everywhere he turns there are people telling him it does. Look, this information is easily verifiable, it's NPOV, it's considered important by many, many historians and political observers. It's a discriminate list. Both age in office, age in death and age after office are widely discussed in the media, in presidential biographies, etc. This is, per any definition, notable stuff. It has very real implications for what the role of an ex-president is in U.S. society. And U.S. Presidents, less powerful than they once were, are nonetheless among the most important political figures and statesment both in the U.S. and the world. It's worthwile to have this information in a list for sake of comparison. It'd be highly tedious for someone seeking this information for any of the half-dozen reasons mentioned above, to click through all 43 articles to figure it out. This information certainly has a place in an not-paper encyclopedia. Frankly, this would be a good candidate for a featured list. If you read WP:LIST it doesn't violate anything in it. If not for the delete vote I'd say speedy. --JayHenry 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Question If this AfD ends up in a keep, will you support an undeletion request for List of Philippine Presidents by longevity? --- Tito Pao 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know. I don't buy that there's a precedent. They are totally different countries. I notice that many "keep per precedent" arguments were disregarded in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity. I hope that the closing admin of this debate will similarly disregard the "delete per precedent" arguments. They are different countries, their presidencies have different impacts. --JayHenry 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The John McCain argument may apply to a discussion about age at election or nomination but I see little relevence to lifespan, which is what this list is about.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent, I think with the Philippine presidents. This is no different. YechielMan 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason I opined that the Phillipine list should be deleted. Variable ways to rank the presidents are justifiable if the longevity has an impact on their presidential career, so things like service length, chronology, performance at elections and so on are OK. However, unless a president has been assassinated or otherwise died in office (and most US presidents have not done that), the length of time they continue to live after leaving office is outside the scope of what is relevant to the presidential coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments of Sjakkalle, echoing my own sense that a list of presidents by age on inauguration is one thing, but age of death quite another. It's just not relevant. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I half expect the AfD on the Philppine presidents list to show up on DRV. I !voted to keep that one mainly on the precedent that this list had survived the scruitny of a prior debate. I probably should have just gone with my gut opinion though with a delete - previous debates and consensus notwithstanding, this is just trivial information and not encyclopedic. Arkyan • (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent and irrelevance to any encyclopedic info regarding presidential ability. And might I add a Delete All to all lists like this stated in the Philippines AfD nom (from Canada to what elses). Berserkerz Crit 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Good almanacical information that a reference work like Wikipedia should contain. I believe both Time magazine and Newsweek had sidebars with the information when Ford died. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As per users "JayHenry" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )". Extremely sexy 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per users "JayHenry" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )"; Topic gains extensive media coverage anytime a president dies. Note also that this page is the top google/yahoo return for the search "president longevity". Alternative to deletion is Redirect to List of United States Presidents by date of death. That page has a sortable column with which one can derive most of the list (one must still calculate age of living presidents). --Work permit 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep - As per JayHenry. US Presidential details are an important part of historical research and having them in one place aids researchers which should be one goal of any encyclopedia. Disagree strongly with Sjakkalle and Dhartung above - it is of historic interest how long Presidents live after leaving office - they remain of interest throughout their lives. (And some of the comments above sound like sour grapes regarding the deletion of the Philippine list. Do a DRV on that one if you think it was unfairly handled - don't take it out on this one.)Tvoz |talk 17:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and several other lists such as List of US Presidents by date of birth/time in office/time as former president etc. to a single sortable table in a simple List of US Presidents. No need then for seperate articles. - fchd 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging ALL the lists would create a table with alot of columns, which would be very cumbersome. --Work permit 18:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a table. The information in that article can already be found at each respective President's page. Date of death is important that's why individual articles contain them. But a list comparing who is alive the longest or shortest amongst presidents does not help anyone in his or her research. It is inconsequential and unencyclopedic. Berserkerz Crit 18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per JayHenry and Richard Arthur Norton. (And while I'm here, yes I would approve a DRV of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity). AndyJones 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept and the Philippine list deleted how do we reconcile the apparent WP:BIAS? Carlossuarez46 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is any bias in the community: I see eleven people making your point at the Philippine AfD: more than voted delete. The only bias I percieve is in the discounting of those comments by the closing admin. AndyJones 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is the purpose of this AfD simply to make a WP:POINT on the Philippine Presidents deletion? --Work permit 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: No it's to enforce WP policies equitably throughout all articles. Berserkerz Crit 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete as long as all other lists such as this are deleted. If this is kept, the Philippines list should automatically be restored as the closing admin did not follow what's the consensus on the deletion page, which was "no censensus," which would be keep. --Howard the Duck 03:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes sometimes I doubt the wisdom of closing admins... Berserkerz Crit 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment isn't going to count for anything upon closing. You can't have a "conditional delete", it doesn't work like that. I disregarded this same comment when I closed the Philippines list AfD. Of course, you're welcome to nominated all the other lists for deletion. John Reaves (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me the guideline which forbids/frowns upon/discourages/etc. "conditional delete"? I've read a page which forbids/frowns upon/discourages/etc. votes such as "delete per nom" or a simple "delete", though. --Howard the Duck 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. An important issue in numerous presidential campaigns throughout US history. Our role is to make the info accessible to students; that's what this article does. --JJay 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is this an important issue in numerous presidential campaigns? As far as I know, longevity of ex-presidents is not a campaign issue. Fitness and health are. And those information can be found at each president's respective articles. Berserkerz Crit 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. This is a WP:POINT nomination and should be viewed as such. Nominating editor said, in the AfD for Philoppine Presidents by longevity that if that closed out with a delete than he would "nominate this one out of spite." This has WP:POINT written all over it. Rockstar (T/C) 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, this has bred productive discussion. John Reaves (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting time discussing is hardly productive. Continuing this debate is feeding the trolls. Rockstar (T/C) 23:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course, how could I forget that discussion is a waste of time? John Reaves (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is when it's a POINT violation. If you don't like the article or want to discuss it, submit it to an RfC. Period. One would think that as an admin you would know that. Anyway, since when do we keep POINT nominations? Rockstar (T/C) 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the nomination, this has generated discussion over the deletion of this article. An RfC would be pointless because it isn't actionable. John Reaves (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you can't think for yourself, feel free to take a comment from the old afd. John Reaves (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a content fork of a basic list. Add the extra column there and make it, and everything else, sortable as the new formats allow. --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per others. Keep at least until they can implement some ajaxian feature to allow people to easily extrapolate this information from tables. --Remi 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steve, Berserkerz, and Pax:Vobiscum. Arbustoo 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The press coverage argument would be as applicable to List of Presidents who owned cats or dogs, or cats and dogs, or neither, which I'm sure Time and Newsweek have reported on.
There is a List of United States Presidential pets --Work permit 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The media may mention Ford as the longest lived ex-Pres, and if Bush dies ten years after leaving office it will probably be mentioned that he is the 19th, or whatever, but who cares? It is trivia, as are his pet preferences. The Mcain situation, also cited when Reagan ran, and from the other side, when Kennedy ran, is to age at election or party nomination, not longevity. Top Google hit? My user page is the #5 Google hit for killing sparrows. WP:POINT? The full quote included, "I'm joking. Mostly." The previous AfD? Yes, please ignore it and it's keep votes such as, 'I like it,' 'interesting,' and 'I'd be sad to see it go.' WP:LIST gives three criteria, two of which, Navigation and Development, are irrelevent here. Plenty of Pres lists to navigate from and all subjects in list are developed. The third, and the only basis for judging this list states,
"The list 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."
So a list may be, or not. I say not. The best 'keep' !vote I see is the Almanac ref, but I feel it is negated later in the quoted paragraph as this is trivia. Looking at the list I see no correlation with impact on nation, significant legislational initiatives, economic growth or stability, even popularity. Kennedy and Lincoln near the bottom, Roosevelt and Washington in the middle, Reagan and Jefferson near the top. What important historical research does this support? Which historians and political observers consider this important? Death in office, assasination and changes in lifespan due to a variety of factors all skew this list so as to be unusable for any serious statistical research or analysis.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 04:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep there is nothing wrong with 'trivia' as long as it is sourced/notable. The argument based on the WP:NOT#IINFO statistics point is irrelavent, if you actually read the paragraph. It never said that a list could never be based on statistics. What it does say is that statistic lists should simply not be long or sprawling and that there should be sufficient explanatory text for the reader. This article does not violate either of those clauses. --Entoaggie09 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of United States Presidents by date of death and use sortable columns. Longevity is already included. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT as a pile of statistics. Otto4711 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be replaced with a sortable table? --NE2 05:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Philippine precedent. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 04:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very rarely do I disagree with Sjakkalle on anything, but the length of a president's life is very relevant to his historical role. John Adams, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter all did (still doing, in the last case) significant work to improve their public images in their very long lives; James Polk, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, and Warren Harding, all with very short post-presidential lives, had no such good fortune. A long-lived president is given an opportunity to shape his own legacy in the public imagination, one denied to those who die early. Xoloz 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You are mixing points. Yes what they did post-presidency is important and a coverage of research and encyclopedic but not their longevity. Your opinion seems to constitute WP:OR by surmising that those who live longer are given benefit of doing more work than those who live short, but that goes for any person. Live longer, do more. Live short, did less. Berserkerz Crit 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry, I don't get this at all, how can anyone's opinion in a deletion discussion possibly be criticised as WP:OR? AndyJones 16:14, 6 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_longevity&oldid=1140160076"