Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current members of the Canadian House of Commons by age


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

List of current members of the Canadian House of Commons by age

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I hate to nominate this article for deletion, but it is two elections out of date, and has the Library of Parliament doesn't provide DOBs for many MPs anymore, it would be essentially impossible to reconstruct or update in a meaningful way. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 02:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 02:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and also for the nominators reasons that it is outdated and difficult to update due to the lack of accurate, reliable sources, that once existed. Ajf773 (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * wek delete - if the template used did the calculations itself then it would be more useful and easier to update. right now it's accurate but that will change and when it does who will be there to update it, much less do the calculations themselves.Grmike (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
 * Delete. Out of date (my MP is not still Bob Rae, and hasn't been Bob Rae for seven years now!), but we lack viable sources to get it back up to date with. Sources may sometimes exist for the ages of some MPs, but there's no source that consistently gives the ages or birthdates of all MPs — as noted, even Parliament's own self-published website doesn't do that anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * delete This is exactly the kind of make-work article that we really should be coming down harder on. At best, if the data were available, it should be in the main list of members— and if there isn't one, then this article shouldn't exist either. As it is, the sourcing issues apparently make an accurate and complete article impossible. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2020 (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.