Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Ministers-President 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.  Sandstein  08:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

List of German Ministers-President by longevity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no intersecting topic between being leader of a German State at some point and how old someone gets before dying. We might as well list them by height or length of marriage or any other arbitrary criteria unrelated to term of office. No sources. Fails WP:LISTN and redundant to whatever lists of office holders these people are on already. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Arbitrary and not encyclopedic. But why are you nominating each of these lists separately? Pburka (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per arguments in Articles for deletion/List of German Ministers-Presidents by longevity. Star Garnet (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * a 3:3 split vote 5-6 years ago with no rational stated in the close. Best argument advanced was OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Far from it. User Dewritech's two inputs are the most articulate comments I have seen for the concept that make this and similar lists. While you apparently dismiss/disagree with this with your recent slew of AdD nominations (as is of course your right), it is apparent from the six other nominations that I am not alone in holding this opinion with regard to the subject matter passing LISTN. Star Garnet (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dewritech argued that older politicians are more likely to have more written about them, and to have published more of their own reflections. This is an interesting argument, but it's purely hypothetical. To demonstrate that this topic is notable, we would need to see that independent sources discuss longevity of politicians as a group. In none of the discussions I've seen&mdash;past or present&mdash;has such evidence been presented, nor have I found any myself. Pburka (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/ Trout Slap Nominator for Mass Nominations Without Consensus This is an encyclopedic topic that is perfectly appropriate as a standalone article. The broad consensus in the other mass nominations has been for retention and there's nothing different here; All we have is the apparent hope that editors will be confused by the sheer excess of these abusive mass nominations. The only argument offered by the nominator is WP:IHATEIT. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Alansohn needs a fire extinguisher for his pants over his constant miscarctorizations of my editing and success rate at AfD. Lay off the personal attacks already, try citing some sources where this topic is discussed in any RS or find a new hobby that does not involve harassing me. Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * appears to be protesting way, way too much. There are several AfDs all started simultaneously to address the same set of articles regarding national leaders by age all started at the same time; None of them have had any success. Calling another editor a liar is in disturbingly bad faith for an editor who has made repeated claims about others. My suggestion for a New Year's resolution stands; Nominate one article at a time, make your case once (and only once, without monopolizing AfDs) and wait to see what consensus brings. Why not start now. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When some editors have no policy basis to support their [redacted] opinion, often these [redacted] editors turn their guns on the nomination. Alansohn misleading is stating the unknown results of open AfDs here. If you nominate 1 the critics say 'what about the others like it'. If you nominate 4 very similar the critics say you are 'dominating AfD'. I've courtesy warned this several times already nicely because he is a high edit count editor, but on the flip side as a high edit count editor they should know better the to engage in such poor behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, then redirect Per WP:NLIST, there are no sources to suggest that the topic covered by this list is notable. Perhaps some lists in the nature of "List of x with attribute y" are notable. There's no overarching consensus on the matter. See WP:NOTESAL. But even if some are, this one ain't. David in DC (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a form of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Lists of people by some attribute can easily be created by querying wikidata. Such queries can be incorporated into the article about the notable relation between a topic's subjects and a particular property. Then you can have a list of German/French/US/whatever heads of state by, for example: height. After all, There seems to a height-success association. Mduvekot (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's WP:LISTCRUFT Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable and not a defining characteristic. A pointless list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2016 (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.