Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest reigning monarchs of all time


 * 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The result was The Result was Nomination withdrawn. --YbborTalk 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

List of longest reigning monarchs of all time

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looking at the talk page, it seems there are dozens of rulers which even a cursory glance around the web will turn up that fit into this list. The number of rulers of states in the Holy Roman Empire, or Indian princely states, African monarchies, etc. are almost uncountable, and many of them likely have had rulers whose reign would put them into the list, as the talk page can easily attest to. This list is not simply incomplete, its incompleteness makes its figures downright wrong. It would be almost impossible to create an accurate article/list, and therefore I propose that rather than perpetuate inaccurate information, we shut it down entirely. --YbborTalk 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable by reliable sources. Improve, not remove. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, and, IMO Merge with List of longest reigning current monarchs. Garret Beaumain (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly reasonable topic and the talk page debate shows that it's undergoing constant improvement. Isn't that the point of wikipedia?  Deleting something for being incomplete would condemn everything to deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator - "Undergoing constant improvement"? There were lists posted in Feburary and March, the former of which the editor refused to add because the article would still be woefully inaccurate. And while I agree that incompleteness is generally no reason for deletion, in this case the list can never be complete, and as it attempt to rank monarchs, it's incompleteness makes it wrong. As an analogy, Translation states "the general consensus of Wikipedia contributors is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." In that same vein, I would submit that a list that is not now, nor ever can be accurate is worse than nothing. Incompleteness is not the point. --YbborTalk 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Every single Wikipedia article is incomplete. If perfect completeness was a requirement for article, we should shut Wikipedia down entirely, as every single article is wrong. The analogy of machine translation is entirely specious; translation will likely introduce errors. Changing order leaves all of the information intact. If you have additional entries that are missing and belong here, please add them to the talk page for addition, or, even better, grab the bull by the horns and add them yourself. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons specified by Nick mallory. Tennis expert (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since it deals with 'high culture' as opposed to 'low culture', I guess it's an encyclopedic list by default.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't find ranking by verifiable (sourceable) length of reign much different from alphabetical ordering -- that is, it isn't synthesis as I believe consensus understands it. There is a small issue of the accuracy of ancient sources, but I don't think that's necessarily our concern, as long as we can source. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no original research here. Placing a list in an order that provides useful and encyclopedic information creates a notable list. This is a widely studied subject ad there should be ample information to fill in any gaps. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is widely studies (as written above), and it should not be deleted. The list is nicely organised, I don't know why it was tagged? -- Ohmpandya  ( Talk )  00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)!!
 * Keep per Dhartung. Ford MF (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I still feel the article should be deleted, I recognize that there seems to be firm consensus to keep the article. Per WP:SNOW, and so as not to unnecessarily clog up either AfD or the page itself, I withdraw my nomination.


 * 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.