Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s


 * 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. I should add that if the MediaWiki feature Category intersection was implemented, there would be very little need for lists like this. henrik • talk  21:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s
Closer, please also see Articles for deletion/List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012, if possible both discussions should be closed by the same person. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article's sources do not directly mention the subject, and its content (the names of the deceased Senators) is duplicated in respective articles on years, which include deaths of prominent people. The article's subject, I believe, is not notable. dci &#124;  TALK   01:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I wouldn't say it's so much an issue of notability, but it does seem WP:REDUNDANT and as far as I can tell, this type of article hasn't be precedented by lists from other decades. — JmaJeremy  talk contribs  02:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is notable, these are US senators, and all of their bios are on the external links.  As far as it being redundant, even though they are listed in the list of general deaths, it is not easily found.  This list smoothly incorporates them into 1 place.  I plan on making a list for the 2000s and other decades as well, which will have many more names.  We need lists like this and others such as List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012 to compile these people in 1 place.  We have plenty president and congress related lists which makes this list of senator deaths fit in even more.  This highly beneficial list will fill out nicely over the years, and it's part of a series of congressional related death lists which I hope to continue to make that are just as relevent. RoadView (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete "just as relevent" ... Relevent to what??? EEng (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just as relevent to Wikipeida as any other list, such as List of Presidents of the United States by date of death, List of Presidents of the United States by time in office or Oldest living United States president. My list follows the likes of List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 and List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012 - it's completely necessary to have a list of people by date of death in 1 convenient place, the big difference here is I am breaking it down by decade, the others will follow.  If I had every US Senator on here, then people would be saying that it's too large, so I'm breaking it up by decade in advance.  I'm appalled that this list is facing such scrutiny.  Hopefully after I explained my goals it will be clear that this list is just as acceptable as a lot of these other ones.  Again, this template will eventually be filled out and Senators by decade will fit in nicely. RoadView (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's meaningless trivia. That goes for the lists of presidents and supercentenarians as well.  EEng (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you just have a problem with a lot of lists. You could make a case for most lists being meaningless trivia, but others may find them entirely beneficial and convenient, it's very subjective.  That's what a list is, a collection of data.  As for the president and supercentenarian lists, if they are so pointless then why are they still here? Personally I like them, but this is no more pointless than those.  I guess I should have made "List of United States Senators by date of death", which would look like a more substantial article, but I assume it would be too large and would have to break it up into something like this current AfD. RoadView (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, "As for the president and supercentenarian lists, if they are so pointless then why are they still here?", please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. EEng (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it's still misleading to see other similar lists on here as if they are accepted and then find this one target for deletion. I still stand by this not being trivial.  US Senators by date of death is completely notable in my opinion.  I would say if it were state senators, then I could see that being a significant step down of notability and although it would be informative, I would say it's trivial and probably cluttered.   I have seen some trivial lists, but this is not one of them. RoadView (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense having failed, let's look at applicable guidelines. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... (see WP:LISTN).  And those sources are where? EEng (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This clearly mentions the topic.  I could put a citation next to every entry from here  if that's an issue.  But all this totally satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE.  I really think I've made enough of a case for this to at least not be deleted. RoadView (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTPEOPLE tells who should be included in a list which, from its bare description, might contain a large number of trivial entries. For example, the Nazis banned many authors, probably 1000s of them (I'm actually making this up, but you get the idea).  Many of them might have been obscure journalists nobody remembers anymore.  So what LISTPEOLE is telling you is that not every name in the Propaganda Ministry's Banned-Author Registry goes on the Wikipedia list -- in general, WP would list only notable banned authors.  That's for after you've decided to have such a list in the first place, which is the discussion we're having now. (Of course, if this list stays there's no debating senators go on it: they all do -- at least the dead ones, anyway.)  As to the link you provided: it's natural for the Senate itself to have such a memorial roll.  Any other sources (as in sources, plural)? EEng (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again outside of the link I already provided and an individual citation to each link on or an obituary from a newspaper that could be added, I believe the notability has been more than been established and the list requirements have been fulfilled.  Still, from a basic standpoint, US Senators are notable and deaths are notable.  The debate is over if an outside source has specifically covered the senator deaths from this time period as a whole.  That really seems like a technicality.  Making a list from 2 clearly notable things does not automatically work, but I've done about all I can to prove my case that it does work in this instance.  If this doesn't survive I guess I'll have to make an entire list of senators by date of death, which will be huge, and I'm sure I will have to end up splitting it up. RoadView (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you grasp the point. Now you're proposing, instead of List of Senators Who Have Died Since 2010, to create List of Senators Who Have Died.  I rest my case.  EEng (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be "List of United States Senators by date of death" with all senators sorted by date of death in a table with the other pertinent information, similar to a combination of List of Presidents of the United States by date of death and List of Presidents of the United States by age. There is no quick way to be able to find out birth and death dates for US senators and reps.  There is for presidents, which is great.  I'm tired of not having this beneficial information readily and comprehensively available on 1 page.  Apparently it means nothing that there are loads of other related political lists that seemingly have not and will not be challenged at this point.  So it only seems understandable that this list I made was not without precedent.  All these senators are well documented people and there is even a similar list on an official government site.  I can't really imagine what other sources are needed to have this accepted.  It sounds like there has to be a duplicate list already made somewhere else for this to satisfy the desired exact notability.  I kind of figured it would look weird at the beginning if I started off by breaking it down by decade, I guess I was right. RoadView (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Senators are notable, but their deaths and other major life events are to be covered in their own article. Unless there's some evidence that the number or pattern of deaths in the 2010s is unusual (and if it were, that would likely be original research) then this is a trivial intersection of information.  This is no more an encyclopedia topic than, say, List of Swedish Members of Parliament who bought a house in the 1960s would be. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I completely disagree about the comparison. This article is about listing the senators by date of death, which you cannot find easily.  As with other lists such as the representatives or presidents, eventually I hope to compile a list of all senators by date of death.  Since there are too few to list by single year and too many to list on 1 page, listing them by decade is exactly the way to go.  After all the years are finished, they will look presentable in this template.  This article is compiling, in 1 easy place, a list of senators by date of death and separating them by decade, not making a list of 1 the decisions they made in their personal lives as you stated in your example.  That was really an unfair comparison.  I don't want this article to be discredited because it's the first 1 with only 8 names.  There will be more to come and in the end it will all fit together.  There are so many lists out there and it is relevant to show senators, as well as representatives and presidents, by date of death without having to click on them 1 by 1.  RoadView (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Request- Consider posting notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Dru of Id (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk.  "This article is up for deletion and I could really use some support for it to stay."   WP:CANVASS EEng (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. This is just a gentle reminder that alerting members of relevent projects is a good idea, asking them to take a particular position isn't. It wasn't Dru of Id, but RoadView, who posted the loaded message I just quoted.


 * Delete - Irrelevant. Doesn't add anything to WP. —GoldRingChip  11:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I know that I'm the one who posted this, but would a decade-by-decade list of deceased United States federal legislators be too bad?  I know the House sections would be a bit heavy, but it would be far less specific and would contain more content.  In particular, I'd like to know RoadView's opinion on this.   dci  &#124;  TALK   22:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I assume you are proposing something like "List of members of the United States Congress who died in the 2010s" and then list both senators and representatives. Then have 1 for each decade in order to have more content?  I suppose I'd be ok with that, especially if that's what it takes to keep this content on WP.  The only problem, as you mentioned, is the lengthy house list.  2004-2009 already has 151 names, so it seems like people may object to the size of those lists, which is why I settled on single years for reps and decades for senators.  But if everyone else would support it, I can be a little flexible. RoadView (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this would be the best chance for your content to remain here, but we should see what the rest of the commenters say.  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- List of former United States senators covers the full list; perhaps one consolidated List of United States senators who died in office? A corresponding representative list wouldn't be longer than the current List of former United States senators, and your lists wouldn't include current members anyway. Those who died in office would seem to be a notable intersection. Dru of Id (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in only a list of those who died in office. I really think being able to have a page for a certain time period is the best way to go, whether or not it's one page for both senators and reps.  I really appreciate the suggestion though, but I see the List of former United States Senators as being great if you just want a non sortable alphabetical list with out birth, death, or age information on them.  It's a good list for what it is, but it's really lacking the content that I think is even more beneficial.  I suppose a similar list that has not been deleted is List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 or any of those US president related lists.  I didn't think there would be so much objection to making a list of congressional politicians by date of death, especially when there is no other single page that has these details. RoadView (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. In the past, we have kept lists of things that students are likely to need to look up.  Yes, it's trivia, but in such cases we are providing a service of trivia. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that reasoning is that I can't easily think of a reason WHY students (or anyone else) would look this up. Students certainly do reports on senators, but a list of them in order by death date wouldn't help.  This is trivia in its truest totally useless sense, which Wikipedia is NOT the place for. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: if it's kept (which I opposed above), perhaps it could be merged with similar House articles as a new list: List of members of the United States Congress who died in the 2010s.—GoldRingChip 18:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As mentioned above, I cannot conceive how this information might by realistically useful to anyone. it fails WP:IINFO.  Sandstein   20:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is browsing. Looking thru recently deceased people of a particular occupation is a reasonable topic for browsing. for example, looking at the title, I wondered who they were and if I could identify them all. And suppose someone wanted to do a school report on some recently deceased politician, without any particular idea of who. Three possible uses. That someone else sees no use for it is irrelevant. There's about 3/4 of Wikipedia that I see no rational use for, but other people seem to. that's what being an encyclopedia   is about: the diversity of interests.  DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all I strongly agree with the above comment. Now I know I already mentioned this, but I thought I would sum up my position.  This AfD along with this one are part of this template.  When finished it will have a every congressional death link on it.  This current discussion (2010s, senators) is has been broken up by decade because a year by year page like the representatives would have so few entries.  On the surface the notability seems fine, senators and death dates are certainly notable.  Also, there is no other way to access this information other than clicking on them 1 by 1 on other lists.  We know there are obituaries for all of these people in newspapers and on sites like this .  There is already even a similar list here .  So taking into account all of that, I believe already satisfies enough of the technicalities .  Finally, apparently it was stated that this isn't supposed to matter at all, but there are numerous other lists on there already such as this, this, and this.  All of those can certainly be viewed as trivial by some as can countless others.  There is enough notability and enough of an interest for those lists to exist, which I agree with.  So even though there is some precedent involved, somehow it's not supposed to matter that they already exist because they do. I think that there are far worse lists to delete than this and regardless, I have made a good enough case for this kind of thing to stay.  RoadView (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG Presenting information in different forms such as lists should be seen as a good thing. Dean B (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment relisted as this is a useful discussion about relevancy of lists and WP:IINFO, and could do with further input. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Senators are undoubtedly notable, however their death, and other events in their life, should be covered in their article. Such an article can be kept if there was an unusual pattern of the death of senators in 2010. However that doesn't seems to be the case. In short, this article should be deleted. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of former United States senators - as a date of death column can be added to that article. A separate article for each decade would add nothing to what such a date-of-death sortable table would provide, but would actually make the information harder to find.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's technically not a bad idea, but the concern I raise is that that list already seems too large. What would have to be done is to remove all of the subsections, which are by letter, and then put it all in 1 table so you can sort everyone by whatever category you want.  Personally, I think it would look a little too cluttered.  Also, I would like this page to match the format of the other representative pages.  There are far too many reps to put into a table on 1 page so those are broken down by year.  Those are the main reasons I'm not totally on board with just adding a birth, death, and age column, but if there is still a strong movement to do so I will deal with it. RoadView (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep per RoadView. I would add that these lists are considered significant by members of the relevant Wikiproject, there is no allegation that they are inaccurate in any way or will become inaccurate because they are difficult to maintain, and they compile relevant information in a highly convenient format that I have myself consulted from time to time. Discussing the potential deletion of this group of lists does not strike me as a worthwhile use of the community's collective time and resources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I still think these comments are being overly critical. This satisfies WP:LISTPURP, it's presenting information in a different way. I also think people are being thrown off by the title and thinking that the "2010s" thing is trivial. Again, it is only done like that because if I named it the original title of List of United States Senators by date of death, it would be too long and would need to be broken up. I think a great example of precedent is List of Presidents of the United States by date of death or List of supercentenarians who died in 2012. Both of those can easily be viewed as not notable, not widely covered as a whole, or trivial, especially the former as it is plagued with trivia. However I think all of this kind of information is beneficial at least to some people even if others think it's trivial. This is all notable information and not found anywhere else in one place. There's really no compelling reason to wipe this from WP, especially when there's list after list on here that could potentially fall under this same category. How about List of comic and cartoon characters named after people, I don't care about this, I don't see why it's notable as a whole, and it is rather poorly sourced, but since it is a list, someone has taken information and put it all in one easy to view place. This is the kind of stuff that enriches WP, but may not be for all tastes. There are countless examples on here and I think it's valid to at least point out how there are worse lists out there that receive less scrutiny. If you read all my previous comments on the page, I have demonstrated it's notability and have provided a link that further cements it's relevancy. But I don't even think I needed to go that far, as making a list of senators by date of death on it's own should be an acceptable topic to make a list on. RoadView (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, with a second choice to Merge and Rename with List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in ####; I lean to keep in order to have the information as accessible as possible rather than split among articles. Deaths a few years apart, in this case, would still be contemporaneous.  I believe the question of whether a particular group deserves such as list is currently subjective; athletes are notable too, but I am less clear that a list by year of death is needed for them.  As there are many potential articles in this area, a guideline would be useful. Matchups 11:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, although a profitable discussion could be had about whether to expand this to List of United States Senators by date of death as mentioned above. By virtue of position, each entry on this list will concern a notable person. The date of death is an essential fact in any biography. Given that this compiles notable facts about notable people, I cannot see how this can properly can be considered indiscriminate. Further, the fact that the information is duplicated elsewhere of no moment, all proper lists are a compilation of information available elsewhere. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:13, 25 March 2012 (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.