Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity

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. However, I have not actually deleted the page yet temporarily undeleted the article, in order to facilitate the implementation of 5230's eminently valid suggestion of placing the information in the main list. Once that is done, this should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity

List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Per corresponding deletion debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of Switzerland by longevity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One drivers by longevity: the two elements to this list (first lady and age at death) are unrelated. Therefore the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I42 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, the most indiscriminate one of these I've seen yet. And also, argh, it's not a list of first ladies by longevity! It's a list of first ladies in order of their husbands' presidencies, along with their lifespans in the right-hand column.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The order by husbands's presidency is just the default order. That's why the table is sortable, so yes, the table can be sorted in order of longevity (also sortable by the name of the first lady). Bcperson89 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha -- okay, that's cool! Learn something everyday.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - WP is not a junkyard (GregJackP (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Delete per nomination as other articles already removed for the same reason.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies the requirements of WP:LIST. Relevant debates also at List of United States Presidents by longevity (no consensus), and List of current United States governors by age (keep). Bcperson89 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The first of those other articles is now List of Presidents of the United States by age. Both, then, concern ages at inauguration which is not indiscriminate; those articles are entirely different. I42 (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, as a completely unnecessary fork of List of First Ladies of the United States. Being the wife of a term-limited political figure has nothing to do with longevity. No sources, no distinctive encyclopedic value, WP:LISTCRUFT. — Rankiri (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Meets all the requirements of WP:LIST. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• What about WP:SALAT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• What about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic". Bcperson89 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• What about WP:ILIKEIT? Your only argument for keeping the article is based on the straw man claim that it satisfies WP:LIST. Well, no one said that it didn't. We're discussing a possible violation of the two guidelines I just mentioned, and I would still very much like to hear why you think that being a First Lady has anything to do with one's length of life. — Rankiri (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep or as above, change to a "by age" article. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Since this type of AFD seems to be on its way to a WP:FREQUENT topic, each with its own repetition many of those which have come before it, it may make more sense to escalate this to an WP:RFC to use a wider audience to get a final consensus. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not notable enough to be encyclopaedic content—there are no sources that give notability to sorting First ladies by longetivity. As a list on its own, it is completely redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H3llkn0wz (talk • contribs) Pardon me, I forgot to sign. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. As per my comment on the related AfD comments page, these AfD requests for "List of ... by longevity" come up every now and then. Take a look here for example: WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_longevity_2nd_nom. I personally find no use in these lists other than being a curiosity. So I won't even vote on them, but instead just point this out. Nageh (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete on the condition that birth and death dates are included in the main list, and that that list becomes sortable. It must be noted that the birth and death dates are indeed useful and should be included. The longevity is ridiculous and is not a particularly notable listing, and can be determined by anyone with a calculator. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point; include dates of birth and death (if applicable) in the main list. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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.