Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders


 * 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. Pretty much none of the "Keep" comments address the problems with this article, and indeed some of them don't advance any argument whatsoever (quite apart from the suspect nature of some of them). Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOTSTATS oddity which seems to be an original compilation (thus failing WP:OR) which is not found in any other reputable source (thus also failing WP:V and WP:LISTN) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

*Keep. double vote -- Putting together a list of world rulers and calculating their time in power is something I would expect to find on Wikipedia. We should have more lists like this! Sure, there should be a better way of maintaining them, but gosh, this is a way more effective way of presenting the information than text alone (and way, way easier to see "non-royal" leaders than the general longest-serving one you all say is redundant).
 * Delete - as we've too many of these 'list' articles. Note, I'm a republican, to boot. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree it appears to be OR as it mixes up single continuous terms of office with interrupted terms. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep- wow, surprised to see this come up for deletion -- who on the list are you working for?? I haven't yet learned the Wiki jargon, but as a scientist I can say that a list based on other sources is not WP:OR -- quite the opposite. And it has been updated regularly (e.g., Angela Merkel is no longer listed). Please, this is an interesting, useful page that links to many other pages. It deserves to be updated/fixed of whatever minor problems, rather than torn down entirely. (Indeed, had I known there were problems amounting to deletion, I would have volunteered to fix them long ago.) Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here is one that fundamentally cannot be fixed: the page is an original compilation (not found or discussed in secondary sources elsewhere, thus by definition WP:OR in the sense of that term on Wikipedia) which in addition depicts a topic which is not encyclopedic (a mere statistical intersection). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it may be interesting and even useful, it's a non-encyclopedic list because it's fundamentally unstable. An encyclopedia is a compilation of accumulated knowledge, and knowledge about current leaders is necessarily ephemeral. pburka (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN – see The world's longest-serving leaders or Africa's longest-serving leaders. Our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry Andrew - that's wrong. Both of those articles include royal leaders (Abdullah II, Mohammed VI) the one thing this list excludes. Sources need to discuss the cross-category of "current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders" otherwise this vote doesn't make sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't address the NOTSTATS aspect, as usual. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is a violation of WP:NOTDIR#6 as it is a non notable cross categorisation and quite a number of the entries in the list are included across multiple positions (e.g. both president and prime minister) which are not the same type of leadership. Ajf773 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant WP:OR that combines inconsecutive terms and many different positions held to obtain random lengths of tenure to form a list. Fails WP:NOSTATS, WP:V, and WP:LISTN, as no reliable source ranks global politicians this way. Just a non-notable cross-categorization that can quite reasonably be seen as a WP:HOAX. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, if nothing else, per WP:DELREASON: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). Specifically, this is a fork of List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office with a narrower scope. TompaDompa (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not WP:OR. The criteria could be better but this page has generated a lot of discussion and attention (in my school project too). It tells a lot about endless leaders and democracy too. Please make it better but don't flush it. --Difettos (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Difettos (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office already covers the pertinent information.2601:241:300:B610:585F:5AD3:56C6:1BD7 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office per redundancy of information. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given already. The one I found most convincing was that a list that is inevitably unstable and needing frequent revision is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Something I wondered on looking at the article is whether the President of Switzerland does any ruling. Does anyone outside Switzerland have any idea of the name of the President of Switzerland?  Athel cb (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * both of these reasons are ridiculous. We are not a print encyclopedia -- a huge swath of Wiki articles cover developing stories that are constantly being updated (like, should we abandon all the Covid-19 pages then?). Also your criteria for inclusion ("does anyone outside of Switzerland have any idea...?") is completely ethnocentric. Again, you misunderstand what an encyclopedia is for (e.g., if people already know, why would they look it up?). Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a criterion for inclusion; it was just a comment. If it bothers you you can ignore it. However, there is a serious point in that a list of "rulers" should list people who rule, but as far as I can discover the President of Switzerland doesn't qualify.  Athel cb (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Man, all you deletionists are so ready to tear down other people's work simply because it's different from what you think Wikipedia should be. Inclusionism is the only way Wiki can survive, though. Chill with the delete button please. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:ILIKEIT and begging for mercy are not good arguments. The only one that seems to misunderstand what an encyclopedia is, is you: an encyclopedia is a summary of knowledge, not a database or case study; and certainly not a place where original conclusions can be published, even less so when it employs a dubious methodology not found anywhere else; and when it is redundant with a far better article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Following your logic RandomCanadian, the List of most-viewed YouTube videos page would not exist. What dubious methodology? Every leader has the ruling time exposed on his/her page and those are gained from valid sources, right? This is just a useful article to have a "general look", to sum it up. Also, WP:PASSIVE no need to add that "The only one that seems to misunderstand what an encyclopedia is, is you". Difettos (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * “Methodology” maybe not, but as for definition, it’s completely arbitrary— there is no widely agreed-upon definition of “non-royal leader”, which as Jwkozak91 basically admitted is just being used as a euphemism for “dictator” which is a highly contentious label even if most of us know it when we see it. Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tiredmeliorist, please don’t abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki! Dronebogus (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Temporary trivia that fails NLIST, and the name is an example of why some people can't take Wikipedia seriously. This is just... sad. And funny. WP:BJAODN-funny. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep; this is generally a list of the world's dictators (except for the Caribbean and Western Europe), which I think is useful. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s getting really, really tedious having to constantly link to WP:USEFUL etc., and “most of the world’s dictators except for xyz” is the definition of arbitrary. Also, what dictators in Western Europe? Every single country in that area (as the UN defines it) is a liberal democracy (except for maybe Monaco which is a semi-democratic monarchy). Dronebogus (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant content and arbitrarily defined original research. Dronebogus (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid navigational list. All entries have their own articles, and this is a valid categorization.   D r e a m Focus  12:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep saying that? What’s a NON navigational list, anyway? Dronebogus (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can read about the types of list at Stand-alone lists. You should really know more about list before going around trying to delete some.   D r e a m Focus  12:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can’t say I see anything going by the name “navigational list” in there. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Start reading at Appropriate topics for lists. The WP:CSC section there explains things well.  Also read: WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP.   D r e a m Focus  23:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like any article with the word 'longevity' in the title is on the chopping block lately. Bkatcher (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Are you gonna give any rationale for keeping at all? Curbon7 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been here for years, it's been constantly updated and referenced. If I decided you shouldn't be allowed to watch your favorite TV show, it wouldn't be your responsibility to justify keeping it; it would be the censor's place to justify taking it away, and they'd better have a darn compelling argument. The onus on those who wish to destroy, rather than those who wish to create. Bkatcher (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You sound less like a neutral Wikipedia editor and more like Andrew Ryan railing against his enemies. When you cut out the passionate opinions, your argument is literally just “it’s old, it’s frequently edited, and there’s references which may or may not be WP:SYNTHESIS”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For a guy who gets so upset about personal attacks, you can sure dish 'em out. Bkatcher (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m saying your arguments are largely based on emotion and not very professional, and your only actual points are pretty weak. I’m not simply trying to insult you. Dronebogus (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I call you a j*rk on another user's page and your report me to admin. You compare me to a deranged, megalomaniac video game character, and it's perfectly acceptable. Bkatcher (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was mostly offensive because you were saying it behind my back, but I thought we agreed to drop this. I was also saying your arguments just sounded like something he would say, not that you’re anything like him. Anyway this has nothing to do with the actual discussion so I’m not going to respond unless you want to discuss the issue at hand. Dronebogus (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m just going to point out that if “you sound like a villain from Bioshock” is a bad enough insult to get RPA’d then the “you must be working for an actual real dictator” thing from Tiredmeliorist should also theoretically get redacted, but I’ve been told to avoid doing that since it’s highly contentious. I mainly redacted Bkatcher’s gripe because it had a passive-aggressive hyperlink to my page in it, and also wouldn’t do it today since I was informed it’s more of a last resort that usually makes you look worse. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This page has a clever and clear criteria (time passed ruling + not being a royal, it's that simple lol). It's up to everyone to classify a leader as a dictator or a good politician: very interesting and stimulating. Many pages link here and even more results and content can be easily found on google. Also to be considered,: the proposer has a suspicious obstinacy on deleting interesting pages. I will never get why some wikipedians are like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.238.127.10 (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read: WP:INTERESTING. Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

*Keep double vote -- this is a useful page (seriously, as someone living the Caribbean, I can attest that i've referred several people do this page over the years -- it can be quite enlightening). It's simply way easier to see non-royal leaders and their general time in office here than the general List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. So despite the difficulty keeping it updated, that doesn't mean it should be erased. (And geez, why is it so easy for any page to be guillotine on here?)


 * And again, i wonder which people on the list are driving this campaign, because the edit history shows it's often targetted for political reasons.... Tiredmeliorist (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it’s “targeted” because editors think it’s original research and synthesis of information. Stop accusing people of being agents for some dictator, it’s a very offensive accusation. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I saw your… interesting summary for the above edit, if you keep up this uncivil behavior I’m going to have to report you. Dronebogus (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The top of the page explains that the AfD doesn't go by majority vote. And I'm sorry if you think tearing down pages purely bc WP:IDONTLIKE improves Wikipedia somehow. We all could be doing something much more productive right now, but instead we're sucked into this meta argument over a perfect valid article. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:LISTN, is WP:TRIVIA with a dollop of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to create this cross-categorisation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is a list of leaders and their time in office -- it does not reach any conclusions, so it cannot be WP:SYN or WP:OR.


 * Most of these deletionist arguments are simply WP:IDONTLIKE and would apply to general leaders as well. If you agree that things can be listed, so as to make accessing basic info and comparisons easier (that is, that not everything has to be text -- indeed, we should encourage other ways of presenting data), then there's nothing wrong with this article. It is WP:NOTE because it is dealing with living leaders that have been elected (contra royal leaders, although this does not mean free or fair elections). Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Well as you just unintentionally pointed out, this article is just a content fork of the above article; additionally, it’s odd that you accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of relying on personal taste as an argument, when you just cited that it’s WP:USEFUL to you as an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are the arguments presented for deletion and why they are flawed:
 * WP:OR and WP:SYN
 * As mentioned, the article does not reach any conclusions, so it cannot be WP:SYN or WP:OR


 * WP:NOTSTATS and WP:V
 * The list does not lack context -- it's a list of "elected" (used loosely) world leaders. And just because there is not an outside source where the entire list can be found does not mean it is WP:OR. If such an outside article existed, this list would violate WP:PLAGFORM. So you're presenting a catch-22 by saying the information cannot be found in a single source elsewhere. Not only is the information verifiable through each link, there are several outside sources that are indeed referenced.


 * WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:TRIVIA
 * As said, the list is notable because it is categorization of world leaders, each of whom have their own wikipedia page, thereby qualifying WP:CAT. Saying it is not WP:LISTN is equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKE. As a summary of a notable topic, it is very much in line with WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC.


 * Further, as a cross-categorization of encyclopedic entries (again, elected world leaders) it is applicable as a directory or index item.


 * WP:HOAX and WP:BJAODN
 * In such a discussion, these tags cannot be taken seriously. The page is a list of world leaders and their time in office, so obviously WP:NOTE and WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. I personally think that anyone who tags this as a "bad joke", "hoax", or "silly" has potentially questionable (i.e., political) motives.


 * WP:DELREASON
 * This one is really up to the admin. The general list that was perhaps forked is overloaded with hereditary leaders who were not elected in some manner. It is difficult to see the same information presented here. (And is it really that controversial that a non-hereditary leader's time in office is more interesting than those who are royal?)


 * The onus for AfD should be on those proposing deletion. This article satisfies WP:5P and does not pass WP:DP and should be kept because of the above reasons, including WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:CAT, among others.
 * -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s original research and synthesis of information because “non-royal leader” isn’t a widely-agreed-upon category via reliable sources that discuss it as such— it’s a “category” simply formed by editors subtracting the recognized category of “royalty” from the above-mentioned list. Plus there’s the issue of the fact that it’s a content fork— as already stated, it’s basically the same as an existing article but slightly more specific. Dronebogus (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * this is something that could be easily rectified, no? (e.g., just add a definition for "non-royal" or replace with "elected"). No need to erase the whole thing simply for that reason. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closer @Tiredmeliorist made three official 'keep' votes (Vote 1, Vote 2, Vote 3) in this one AfD. This is disruption akin to the sock onslaught at Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age, and all of their votes and arguments, which repeatedly accused other editors of bad faith, should hold no weight. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of this one vote thing and stopped after it was brought to my attention. The points I've made, however, are completely valid, which is why it's a "discussion" and not a "poll". -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2021 (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.