Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States by date of death


 * 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. Given the back-and-forth arguments towards the bottom of this discussion, it's clear we're not going to get an agreement on what to do with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States by date of death

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Taking the article to AFD since a PROD was previously contested. The only detail actually worth noting (causes of death, dates died, years lived, and burials) is already included in the main bios. The rest is completely superfluous without introducing anything new of meaningful value. Best to just delete this listcruft. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete excessive overuse of statistics that has no notable reason to exist (Ajf773 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to say? There is no new notable content in this page to begin with, so the article itself has no good reason to exist Snuggums (talk / edits</b>) 02:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is very little notable content at all, lists of most prolific months for a President of the USA to die in is hardly notable or encyclopedia. I tend to agree with your previous comment. (Ajf773 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC))
 * In that case, you probably meant to vote "delete" <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Amended preference from Keep to Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs) (diff)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – Useless trivia. We already have List of Presidents of the United States for general stats and List of Presidents of the United States who died in office for morbidity fans. — JFG talk 16:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: While most of what's in the "by date of death" list article is indeed trivial, the core information in it – time and cause of death, along with place of burial – is more than trivial, and not presently included in List of Presidents of the United States, or in List of Presidents of the United States by age. Also, there is a parallel article List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is an article on dates of birth isn't exactly a good justification for keeping this one per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist. Also, as I previously stated, the non-trivial information is included within the main presidential bio pages, which is where they really belong. That basically makes this a needless regurgitation of such content. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a debate forum. I don't need to make a "convincing argument". This is a forum for giving reasoned opinions, which you and I have both done. Cheers.Drdpw (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It might not be a debate forum, but AFD votes most certainly do need to make convincing arguments in order to prevail. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 12:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - While some or much of this is deletable trivia, at its core is a table of unarguable functionality and merit, in an almanac sort of way. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As said before, the non-trivial information is already in main bios, so this is needless repetition <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Snuggums, restating your reason for proposing deletion of this list does not make your argument more compelling. You need to demonstrate that this list article is not a valid topic for a stand alone list by pointing to specific WP policies or guidelines. If you could, please do so. That's what I'd like to read from you in this discussion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to know which presidents died in which order then why should they have to wade through dozens of other articles to find out? One of the functions of an encyclopedia is to present information in various ways that readers will find useful. And please don't quote WP:USEFUL without reading and understanding it first. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not like the "keep" reasons have been any more convincing. Anyway, this fails WP:Content forking since the only information actually noteworthy is already in main bios. It is not even worth merging into any other page at this point. If this on the other hand had meaningful data not present in other pages, though, my stance would be different. As for looking for dates of death on one page, they are already included in List of Presidents of the United States. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete perhaps at best as this could be its own article but I'm not seeing a large amount of likely searched and even then, someone could compile it themselves simply from the Presidents list. SwisterTwister   talk  04:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The list duplicates the information in List of Presidents of the United States. Some of the content seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH; the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problem is largely not with the facts cited but rather with the non-standard/novel way of presenting/organising them. A lot of the factoids cited in the "Facts" section are arguably SYNTH/OR, since even though these coincidences are easily verifiable by anyone using basic reasoning, reliable sources generally don't consider these particular factoids notable enough to call attention to; trivia like that isn't really notable. SJK (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. WP:REDUNDANTFORK is also not a strong argument. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that not liking something was enough reason; my point is that all the good content is just a rehash of other pages and doesn't have anything else new of value. Redundancy actually is a fair argument, and better than any reason given to keep. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, redundancy is not a good argument. Pretty well all of our list articles are redundant to the individual articles about the elements of the list, and a rehash of their content, but presenting them as a list helps our readers, who are the important people here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really help when it introduces nothing new of value. Besides, there are lists spun off from parent articles (i.e. "List of accolades received by ______" pages) that go into noteworthy detail not mentioned in parent article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 21:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. if you want to be pedantic about it, my comment should have said "very many" rather than "pretty well all". The point still stands that those lists whose elements have their own articles are, by design, redundant to the articles about the elements, but present content in a way that serves some of our readers better. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is actually the opposite of helpful for readers to have content forks bloated with indiscriminate trivia, though. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain excessive listings per WP:What Wikipedia is not. It would probably be better to just have a sortable column for "death" in the main list of presidents article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So how about editing the list to remove the bloat or how about proposing a merge to List of Presidents of the United States or any of the other suggestions in WP:BEFORE? Why is deletion the only satisfactory resolution for you? ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the actually meaningful information is already in the bios and the main list of presidents article, therefore making a proposed merge pointless. It also is not a likely search term. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having the information in a separate list is a good idea for this particular extremely significant position.  I wouldn't support such lists in general.  DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all when List of Presidents of the United States already tracks when they died and most of the detail here is indiscriminate trivia, though. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of the detail do you consider to be indiscriminate trivia? I can't see anything that matches that description, but, if there is such detail that content can be removed from the article rather than the whole kaboodle being deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for all the reasons that I have given above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything except for the causes of death, the dates of death, years lived, and burials. By no reasonable measure is this worth keeping when other pages already adequately cover the content truly worth noting. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, even if we are to accept the strange idea that reliably sourced places of death and burial of US presidents are "indiscriminate trivia", that's four things that are not such indiscriminate trivia, two of which don't appear in List of Presidents of the United States. Yes, there is obviously some content further down the article that might match that description, but that can simply be removed if it is not relevant without deleting the substantive part of the article. The content of your comment is a reason for keeping rather than deleting. Why don't you get out of your entrenched position and actually listen to what people are saying here rather than continually repeat arguments that have been refuted. This is supposed to be a discussion leading to consensus, not a battleground. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You must have misread my comment; I actually said death and burial are among the few non-trivial things. I also am in fact listening to what others are saying, and it just simply isn't convincing. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't misread anything. You mentioned dates, not places. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not mentioning so more explicitly before, but place was also implied to be a non-trivial detail for burial. Place of death is something I actually forgot to mention at first. My bad there. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with all the keep !vote reasons above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE may be instructive here. Don't bother if you can't back up with policy.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I made a couple edits yesterday to the article we're discussing here and have posted a brief summary on the talk page. cheers. Drdpw (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (warning, sarcasm alert), when this article is kept, i look forward to seeing an article on "List of Presidents of Bolivia by date of death" followed by list articles of every country's leaders by  date of death, and then lists of country's upper and lower house members, state governors, military leaders, sports people, entertainers and so on, heck we will probably need a wikiproject to managed the hundreds of articles that will be created! Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with above's clear point. This article is a prime example of Systemic bias, it is so ridiculous the number of list pages for the US Presidents based on such spurious reasons, when other countries rate barely a mention in comparison. We may as well have a page for List of of US Presidents by date their mother last went shopping. Besides, the date of US presidents deaths are alrady covered elsewhere, as has been said above; this page is entirely unnecessary. If the users creating such pages put the same amount of effort they put into these pages (and defending these pages!) into other more neglected areas and projects in the Wikiverse, then we'd have a much more balanced and thoughtful situation.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleting this article won't magically make articles about neglected areas of Wikipedia spring into existence. I am not American, and see the systemic bias that means that there are many articles about Americans whose counterparts for other countries don't exist, but the way to address that is to create those articles about other countries, not to delete those about the US, whose president, like it or not, is the most powerful person in the world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeahh, OTHER STUFF EXISTS is not a reason for keeping, and also bear in mind that Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The President of the US is a notable subject, lots of pages listing every minute detail of their biographies, when they are well-mentioned elsewhere, are not.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you bring up those two pages when neither is relevant to anything that I said? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is brought up because you mentioned the existence of other pages (or lack thereof) with presumably similar natures, and that doesn't by itself justify keeping this or any of those. Inclusion was mentioned since merely having details on a page doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to have the remarkable skill of reading Siegfried Nugent's mind, and, anyway, I didn't say anything that made either of those claims. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not see a valid policy based argument put forward to delete this article. I find it encyclopedic, and the issues brought forward that do involve policy can be taken care of with cleanup in the form of sourcing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See the policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, which says this site shouldn't contain excessive listings. This page is excessive not only for rehashing content from List of Presidents of the United States and presidential bios, but also for going into trivial details like those dying on the same day of year or at the same age without introducing any new meaningful content. Sourcing is entirely moot in this case. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, this is a good policy reason for reducing the extraneous content on the page, and that is all. Drdpw (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also a perfectly valid policy reason for getting rid of lists when they introduce no new valuable content. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The thoughts from readers that pops into my head include: "What if the reader wants to compare two or more different deaths?" "What if the reader wants to know how old the oldest president lived to?" "What was the age the youngest president died?" ect... Lists are made to help with accessibility. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All of that can already be found in the main list of presidents article since that includes death details, thus making this a pointless content fork that needlessly rehashes the content that is actually noteworthy. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, where else is there a list showing date and time and cause of death - all in one table - of the Presidents of the United States? Drdpw (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The main list can easily contain causes of death if it makes things any better. It already includes death dates and ages. Time of day is probably best for just bio pages. As I'm sure you know, the point is that we don't need an article solely dedicated to intricate details on death when the major aspects are already adequately addressed in other pages. There honestly is no good justification for keeping this page no matter what. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A "cause of death" column could be added to the table at List of burial places of Presidents of the United States as well; but, why, when it's already part of the table here? Drdpw (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are lots of columns that could be added to List of Presidents of the United States, but doing so would make that list pretty well unreadable, so we're better off having separate, readable, lists for different subsets of the possibilities. I must once again ask people commenting here to look at this from the point of view of readers who want to find information, who are the people we are supposed to be serving, rather than from a WP:WIKILAWYER's point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really better off with separate lists. Viewers would be able to gain information just fine from the main list if just adding a burial parameter and/or a cause of death parameter. One or two additions isn't a major concern. This also isn't a case of Wikilawyering; it is removing redundancy and excessive detail in places where it's not beneficial or needed. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1- I would be concerned if more columns were added to the List of PsOTUS. Doing so would make that list unwieldy. 2- Removing what you deem "redundancy and excessive detail" is not a compelling reason to delete this page. It is, however, as I stated up-thread, is a good policy reason for reducing the extraneous content on the page. Drdpw (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether more columns would make it "unwieldy" depends on how many additional columns are added. One or two definitely wouldn't hurt. Compelling or not, redundancy and excess detail are definitely better reasons for deleting than any of the reasons given for keeping. At least I'm not resorting to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL rationales. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you actually read WP:ITSUSEFUL rather than just throw the phrase around you will see that it supports the argument that encyclopedic usefulness to readers is a good reason for keeping this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did in fact read that, and it says to give reasons why something is or isn't useful, though was just making a general point that I'm not simply saying something is/is not useful without a rationale for why or why not. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You also implied that those on the other side of the issue are stating their position without providing a rationale, which is (w/a few exceptions) inaccurate. Drdpw (talk) 23:01, 11 June 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.