Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rationale per request on my talk page: In my view, the "keep" side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested. However, the "keep" opinions did not adequately address, in my view, the "delete" side's arguments that the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages. One might, therefore, based on this AfD, create a prose article about the topic of long marriages, but not a list of "longest" marriages. I'm not sure about a "list of long marriages"; this might require another AfD.  Sandstein   15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of people with the longest marriages
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SYNTHESIS list of WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. Most sources are occasional reports of long marriages by local press. No apparent source to satisfy WP:LISTN as a group. — JFG talk 09:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 09:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator does not accurately describe the content/subject; there are a large number of sources cited that expressly claim that a particular marriage is a record or the longest, not merely "long". The nominator also asserts "most sources" are of a certain character, without saying what the remainder are (implying they are not of that character). postdlf (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination fails to address the result of the previous nomination which was "keep". It is therefore disruptive per WP:DELAFD.  Such repeat nominations, made without the due diligence of WP:BEFORE, are vexatious because they waste the time of editors on futile argument.  In this case, I just prepared a detailed !vote but my browser crashed and now I've got to do it all again.  The third time is the charm, eh?  To make sure, let's raze the arguments of the nomination.
 * Juxtaposition is not synthesis. Sorting such a list into numerical order is simple arithmetic and, per WP:CALC, that's not OR.
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a vague wave to WP:IDL which is an argument to avoid. The reality is surely that the list is highly discriminating as it has a tight focus on marriages of remarkable length.
 * The page has 145 sources and these include plenty of mainstream, respectable media such as the BBC and The Guardian. They generally indicate that the case is a record and so they are implicitly commenting on long marriages in a collective way.  The sources include Guinness World Records and so the records are reasonably authoritative.
 * There are plenty of other sources out there such as entire books which collect the wisdom of long-married couples or analyze the demographics. Examples include: Secrets of Great Marriages; Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces; 30 Lessons for Loving; Marriage Statistics Analysis.  So the topic passes WP:LISTN.
 * Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD happened in 2016; it is perfectly legitimate to conduct a new discussion after three years. WP:Consensus can change. — JFG talk 13:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination presents no evidence that consensus has changed. The readership for the page is steady and substantial.  The records of this sort are still being maintained by organisations like Guinness.  Instead, the nomination seems to be a drive-by, made in about 2 minutes without any preliminary discussion or due diligence per WP:BEFORE.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination presents no evidence that consensus has changed. This kind of comment is completely unacceptable, and I am frankly shocked that it has gone without comment for almost four days. The point of nominating is to see if consensus has changed, so of course there is no obligation to present evidence in advance that it already had. These kind of comments have been coming far too frequently from the above user. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable topic since news media around the world covers it. 145 references in the article show the topic gets plenty of coverage.   D r e a m Focus  04:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @  D r e a m Focus  You are comparing apples and oranges here. Read WP:LISTN and then think about the fact that these media articles essentially only talk about specific local cases, not large groups of married couples ranked by length of marriage, which is what is being done on Wikipedia. Also review WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also found in Guinness World Records. The 2009 edition on page 107 the Oldest Bride is listed.   D r e a m Focus  14:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't understand that any type of coverage, be it local, national or international of long-lasting marriages is useless in justifying this LIST article because none of these sources LIST groups of people in this manor. What about that can't you understand? Newshunter12 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "...none of these sources LIST groups of people in this manor [sic]..." There's no such requirement that we source a list to other lists. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is just a WP:SYNTH of various news reports about random cases of long-lasting marriages, but WP:RS don't group people in this format, so there is no justification that we should do so here on Wikipedia. That some media coverage exists for long-married couples is pure WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nominated the list for deletion in 2016, and when it was clear there wasn't support to delete, I worked on improving the list instead. I still believe this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia is NOT a record book. There's still no clear criteria for inclusion and some of the included entries are very dubious, e.g. "Likely 2nd-longest married U.S. couple". The sources are mostly local human interest reports (many of which link back to a campaign by a religious group, Worldwide Marriage Encounter) and there's little evidence that collecting long marriages is a notable topic. The sources identified by Andrew Davidson do NOT support inclusion. Guinness is a record book (see WP:NOT), and the other publications discuss all marriages, not just a handful of outliers. Pburka (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject passes Notability, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "people with the longest marriages" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".     <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li><li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The article notes: "Seventy years is nothing to sneeze at, but the Queen and Philip are still a few years shy of the remarkable couples on today’s awe-inspiring list of Five of the Longest Marriages in History: 5) The happy couple: Bill and Bertie Nickerson Their time together: 80 years 4) The happy couple: John and Ann Betar Their time together: 85 years 3) The happy couple: Philipose and Sosamma Thomas Their time together: 88 years, two days  2) The happy couple: Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher Their time together: 86 years, 290 days  1) The happy couple: Karam and Kartari Chand Their time together: 90 years, 291 days"</li> <li> From Google Translate: "Have you ever wondered how long a marriage can last? Well, here's the top of the longest marriages in the world: 91 years and 12 days - the absolute world record was owned by Daniel and Susan Bakeman, a couple in the United States. 89 years and 187 days - Karam and Kartari Chand, from the UK. 88 years and 2 days - K. Philipose and Sosamma Thomas, India. 86 years and 290 days - Herbert and Zelmyra Fishe, from the United States."</li>. <li> The article notes: "Alfie and Win Gaze may have set a record - but they do not know for sure. Today, at Totara Lodge, the Oamaru couple will celebrate their 75th wedding anniversary. That could make them New Zealand's longest-married couple, just a year short of what is believed to have been New Zealand's longest marriage at 76 years." The article also notes: "Long marriages around the world Other long marriages of note: - 86 years, 4 months Philipose and Sosamma Thomas, India, married 1919. - 81 years, 260 days Thomas and Elizabeth Morgan, South Wales, married 1710. - 85 years Liu Yung-Yang and Yang Wan, Taiwan, married 1917. - 84 years Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, United States, married 1909. - 81 years Frank and Anita Milford, England, married 1928 - 76 years Mr and Mrs D. S. Prince, Wanganui, married 1883."</li> <li> The article notes: "Lifetime lovers Frank and Anita Milford have reportedly become Britain's longest-married living couple after celebrating their 78th wedding anniversary. ... With their relationship as strong as ever, the couple hope to beat the record for Britain's longest-ever marriage of 80 years, set by Percy and Florence Arrowsmith. Percy Arrowsmith died last year. ... The world's longest marriage on record is 86 years, set by two couples -- Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Narima in India and were married in 1853 and US couple Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber, who tied the knot in 1743."</li> <li> The article notes: "Longest recorded marriages 79 years Living couple verified as of May 19, 2005 Percy George Arrowsmith (born, March 13, 1900) married Mary Dallimore (born Oct. 31, 1904) on June 1, 1925. Both are from U.K. 86 years Cousins Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman (born Sept. 3, 1848) and Lady Nariman, who were age 5 when their marriage took place, were married from 1853 to 1940. Both were from India. 86 years Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber (born 1725), were recorded as marrying in 1743, at age 18. They were married until the death of Lazarus, 86 years later in June 1829. Both were from the U.S." The article also says that Joseph Dsida and Eva Brandt were married for nearly 75 years. The article also notes that Richard and Mary Pemberton were married for 75 years and that David and Molly Northwood were married for at least 75 years.</li> <li> The article notes: "Few could pull off an 80-year love affair, but Redding couple Del and Margaret Wood did it. ... The longest marriage on record, that of Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, ended in 2011 after 86 years and 290 days, according to Rachel Gluck of Guinness World Records North America. However, the Yorkshire Post reported an 89th anniversary in 2014, that of Karam and Kartari Chand of Bradford, England. In 2016, John and Ann Betar of Connecticut celebrated their 83rd anniversary, and news outlets dubbed the 80-year marriage of Carlsbad couple Maury and Helen Goosenberg the longest marriage in California."</li> <li> The article notes: "Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher broke the Guinness Book of World Records in 2008 for maintaining their marriage for, at that time, 84 years which continued for another three years until his death. ... [Karam and Kartari Chand] This amazing couple has been married even longer than the Fishers who broke the Guinness Book of World Records in 2008. Mr. and Mrs. Chand were allegedly married for 90 years – almost a century. ... [John and Ann Betar] At the time of John’s passing in 2017, they had been married for 85 years. ... [Helen and Maurice Kaye] After being married for 84 years, Maurice passed away at the age of 106."</li> <li> The article notes: "A retired steelworker and his wife - thought to be longest-married couple in the country - celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary yesterday. Ninety-nine-year-old Tom Blacker and his wife Rene, 97, of Thrybergh, near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, marked the occasion with a party for their family, which spans five generations. ... The couple (pictured above) are believed to be Britain's oldest married couple, and their celebration yesterday brings them within seven years of the record for a UK marriage held by James and Sarah Ann Burgess of Bermondsey, south London, who were married for 82 years. Mrs Burgess died in 1965 aged 100. The longest marriage on record lasted 86 years until 1940, between Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Nariman of Bombay, India. They were married at the age of five." </li> <li> The article notes: "The longest recorded marriages by the Guinness Book of World Records are for two couples wed for 86 years. Cousins Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Narima, who lived in India, were married from 1853 to 1940 after getting married aged five. American couple Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber married in 1743, aged 18. The record for the longest marriage for a current living couple is John Rocchio and his wife, Emelia. They were married on Feb 10, 1923, at Providence, Rhode Island, USA, and had their 83rd anniversary on Feb 10, 2006." The article also discusses the Arrowsmiths who were married for 80 years.</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Thanks for the sources, although I wouldn't be surprised if some of them copied their information from Wikipedia, especially the most recent ones. We are failing an authoritative or scientific source tracking the longest marriages. — JFG talk 07:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, citogenesis is very real. I saw it in action recently: a mistranslation appeared on the website of the prime minister of Japan, and a large number of supposedly reliable sources, including the BBC, took that information at face value and printed it; I came onto the Wikipedia article on the relevant topic and clarified the relevant information, and suddenly no less than the White House was avoiding the mistranslation. And the BBC, which posted their own mistranslation of a different term in a related context, suddenly corrected itself within a couple of hours of me adding the correct translation to Wikipedia. Just pointing this out in advance since every time I've seen citogenesis raised in one of these discussions, people fire back with "No! These are reliable sources and there's no way they took their information from Wikipedia!" -- if the BBC are checking Wikipedia, then we cannot assume that the Otago Daily Times are not. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや ) 07:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. Maybe you'd like to add your anecdote to Circular reporting. Personally, I've seen some of the most egregious examples of citogenesis in the Whataboutism article. (But this is a whataboutist remark, undue here.) — JFG talk 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Odds are against any reliable sources ever covering it. I saved the proof privately in case I ever want to pull it up or brag about it. The ironic thing is that in that case the citogenesis was actually a good thing: the external "reliable sources" made an error, I corrected them, indirectly, on-wiki, and they later corrected themselves without comment, with the end result being that the incorrect information was expunged. Tragically, the same is not true for Japanese English-language newspapers such as The Japan Times, which will always prioritize providing "natural English prose" to their target readership -- Japanese students of English -- over factual accuracy: they have repeated the same error dozens of times over, know it is in error, and continue to repeat it whenever the subject comes up. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, at roughly the same time as I wrote the above the International Policy Digest published this article that clearly consulted Wikipedia: Japan’s oldest poetry anthology and variants thereof have been ubiquitous for months now (actually it was something of a pet topic of mine long before it became a "cool" topic), so their saying one of Japan’s oldest collections of poetry really makes it look like they checked Wikipedia, and they were right to do so, since relying on sources like [manhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48029890 the BBC] would have resulted in them making a similar error. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep subject is GNG - covered by major news outlets and regularly reported. WP:NOTPAPER  Lubbad85   (<b style="color:#060">☎</b>) 23:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The "reliable sources" for these entries appear to contradict each other left, right, and center. Yeah, we can presume that any source that doesn't explicitly say "the world's longest" (as opposed to, say, "our country or city's longest") doesn't actually mean that, but what exactly are we supposed to do in such circumstances? A spot-check indicated that such problematic cases account for the vast majority of entries in the list. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete another daft list that will be a pain to maintain.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is indeed a pretty large original research issue inherent in this. It's a fascinating subject, to be sure, but per the nominator and Hijiri88 the sources present here basically require us to make all kinds of inferences about what "the longest marriage" is the longest in the world or a given area. The secondary sources aren't there to collate all this, so it's not feasible for a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of any authoritative sources, this is mostly OR/SYNTH and indeed as Slatersteven says, a "daft list that will be a pain to maintain". --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this appears to fail WP:OR/WP:SYNTH pretty clearly. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename the page to address original research concern: At Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages, made a strong argument for renaming List of people with the longest marriages to List of people with long marriages: "The title of this list is extremely misleading. This is not a list of people with the longest marriages. Far too many people with long marriages are left out for that title to be accurate or fair to the unindoctrinated reader. Given the list's bias against people from the majority of nations on earth with inadequate records on this subject, this list page would be much more fairly titled 'List of people with long marriages.'" A rename of the page would address the original research concern raised by The Blade of the Northern Lights: "the sources present here basically require us to make all kinds of inferences about what 'the longest marriage' is the longest in the world or a given area". Once the page is renamed, there will be no need to make an inference about what is "the longest marriage". The inclusion criteria of the list would be "people who reliable sources say had a long marriage". To further refine the list's selection criteria, the list could be restricted to people married for at least 80 years. Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria: "people married for at least 80 years who reliable sources say had a long marriage". To address the "no original research" concerns, the only action needed would be a rename of the list. Regarding maintenance of the page: Slatersteven wrote, "another daft list that will be a pain to maintain". Per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Editing policy, a page's being "a pain to maintain" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The list currently says in the table "Length of marriage (at date of last report or death)". This means that the list always will be accurate (it will not say a marriage is longer than it really was) though it may be out of date (which is fine per the editing policy). Many of the entries on the list cite an obituary, so those entries would not need to be updated. No circular reporting found I did not find circular reporting in the sources I posted. The AfD participants here have not pointed out circular reporting in the sources I posted. The AfD close for List of unusual deaths: Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3: "The result was   keep. I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically WP:TRIVIA just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the 'want' for the information in perspective. To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article 'crap', and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter." I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria. Just as "list of unusual deaths" is not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual", so is "list of people will long marriages" not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the marriages long". Cunard (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What defines a long marriage?Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2019 (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.
 * Reluctant Delete - The topic is encyclopedic, and the pageview stats show that there's interest in the page, but, absent any definitive source saying "x has the longest marriage", I don't think the list should be kept. Rename per Cunard. His rationale satisfies my concerns about this list being presented as definitive. There are plenty of sources on this subject out there, and a rename brings the list in line with the sources. schetm (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412  T 20:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- as shown above, this list suffers from sourcing concerns as well as problems with original research and synthesis. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 05:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: In reply to Slatersteven's question about "What defines a long marriage?": For this list, "a long marriage" is defined as "a marriage that a reliable source has called a long marriage". This is the same definition as that for list of unusual deaths, where "an unusual death" is defined as "a death that a reliable source has called unusual". This way, Wikipedia editors will not need to engage in original research in trying to come up with their own definitions for when a marriage is "a long marriage" or when a death is "an unusual death".

The lead of List of unusual deaths says: "This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word unusual as 'not habitually or commonly occurring or done' and 'remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others'." The lead contains a hidden comment that says "Deaths that are unusual but that are not associated with reliable sources that say the death is unusual will be removed." We can model the lead of List of people with long marriages after the lead of List of unusual deaths. The lead of List of people with long marriages can say: "This is a list of people with long marriages. This list includes only people who have been married for a significant period of time, as noted by reliable sources. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word long as 'lasting or taking a great amount of time'." The lead could contain a hidden comment that says "Marriages that are long but that are not associated with reliable sources that say the marriage is long will be removed."

Since each entry in the list would need to be called "a long marriage" by a reliable source, there is no original research. Since each entry in the list would stand on its own, there is no synthesis. In reply to Schetm: Thank you for reconsidering your "delete" position and explaining why a rename to "list of people with long marriages" resolves your "concerns about this list being presented as definitive" when it is called "list of people with the longest marriages". Cunard (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Note that List of unusual deaths requires that the death be noted as unusual by multiple sources. If this list is kept, its inclusion criteria should be similarly tightened. Pburka (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No arguments have been presented for why each entry in list of people with long marriages should be sourced to multiple sources instead of at least one source, so I will reserve judgment on whether that should be required. Only a handful of entries on this list are not sourced to more than one source. Cunard (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it is pretty obviously a salient/often-covered topic of apparently great interest to the public; sources abound. Renaming to slightly change focus ("List of longest marriages"?; "Celebrated long marriages"?) is possible but not for AFD.  Complaints like "as shown above, this list suffers from sourcing concerns as well as problems with original research and synthesis" are just matters to be addressed by normal editting, if they have not been already fully addressed by Cunard's informed replies. --Doncram (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Smells like WP:LISTCRUFT. This is trivia, pure and simple. Creating list pages when there isn't a related article should not be done lightly. Someone commented that the lack of maintainability isn't an valid argument but a list with a volatile membership requiring disproportionate effort to keep up to date is cruft. That there is no related article reinforces the non-encyclopedic nature of the list.
 * There is no mechanism to remove or manage entries from the list as newspapers will not update such articles with the report of a breakup or passing. Verifiability is also reduced as there is zero consistency in reporting this in the first place.
 * The list fails WP:LISTV as due to vague inclusion criteria. Indeed, the proposals for criteria are being deliberately phrased so as to avoid verifiability (and attempt escape from deletion).
 * This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there is no meaningful context. Well, no context at all actually. This is amplified (and also made obvious) by the lack of meaningful inclusion criteria.
 * Instead, add a section on the marriage page (similar to 'Long-lived individuals' on 'Longevity') and include the most significant couples. ogenstein (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria, as stated in the article, are "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length." There's no need for removal in the manner in which you describe, as the marriage has already reached a certain length. schetm (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough although eventually the list will get too long. But that does not address any of the other concerns, and the concept of 'record' remains false. ogenstein (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Creating list pages when there isn't a related article should not be done lightly", I agree. List articles should be created only when they pass Notability or Manual of Style/Lists. The "people with long marriages" list clearly passes Notability based on the sources I provided. Regarding "The list fails WP:LISTV as due to vague inclusion criteria", there is a clear inclusion criteria: "A marriage is included on the list if a reliable source has called it a long marriage." I disagree that "the proposals for criteria are being deliberately phrased so as to avoid verifiability". The proposed criteria by requiring verification of a marriage to be "a long marriage" is worded to comply with Verifiability and No original research. Regarding "This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there is no meaningful context", there is no requirement for lists to provide more context beyond defining what the inclusion criteria is. Regarding "a list with a volatile membership requiring disproportionate effort to keep up to date is cruft", WikiProject Lists notes, "Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the Dynamic list template." As supported by the policy Editing policy, the consensus is that dynamic lists that "may require constant updates to remain current" are permissible. schetm correctly explains that removals are not needed since "the marriage has already reached a certain length". Furthermore, the list does not need to be updated to remain accurate since the length of the marriage is defined in the list as "at date of last report or death". Regarding "eventually the list will get too long", the guideline Naming conventions (long lists) notes, "Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages (alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically) to adhere to the Wikipedia guideline on article size." The list currently has 52 entries. If and when the list becomes too long, it can be split into multiple pages. Cunard (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - So what you're saying is that it's not an escape attempt because you've already escaped? This is sleight of hand. In the commentary both above and below, even page supporters show concern or confusion over 'longest' versus 'long'. The sources fail when it remains the former, so it was proposed to change the page name and criteria. This is evasion. However, after changing to the latter, the subject becomes trivia.


 * Per WP:SAL, a list is an article and is subject to the same requirements as one, and an article requires context (see also WP:IINFO). Again, evasion.


 * Separately, the reason this is not a standard article is because it is obviously insuffient to be one. None of the entries are notable and so the list also fails WP:CSC which stipulates that when the subject is non-notable living people, a stand-alone list is inappropriate. I'll repeat my earlier suggestion — put the most interesting entries on the Marriage page in their own section. ogenstein (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I could see some objections being raised on the marriage talk page for this solution. If consensus arrives for a merge of the sort you propose, I think further discussion at Talk:Marriage should take place before it is implemented. schetm (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Would this qualify as 'controversial'? It is not on the list of controversial topics and it does not broach any of the marriage-related items on that list (and shouldn't for decades). But as it doesn't hurt to raise it there (I hope), I have raised the question on that talk page. ogenstein (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a "controversial issues" tag on Talk:Marriage, which is why a discussion should take place there before a merge. Thank you for starting the discussion. schetm (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It was simple enough to do. I just wanted to first look into any procedural docs (which also suggest beginning a discussion there) as well as review the controversial issues list. So, good idea. ogenstein (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment When my paternal grandparents celebrated their golden wedding anniversary, two different and well-regarded newspapers had an article of several paragraphs (including a photo) of them, commenting on their "long marriage". Is that the kind of "long marriages" that we want to make a list about? --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To quote the existing inclusion guideline from this article, "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length" are to be included. So, did the newspapers in question say that your grandparents had the longest marriage on record? If so, then send me some links, and I'll add them to the list! If not, then, no, that is not the type of marriage we want to make a list about. schetm (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the proposed criteria above: "A marriage is included on the list if a reliable source has called it a long marriage." --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote above, "The inclusion criteria of the list would be 'people who reliable sources say had a long marriage'. To further refine the list's selection criteria, the list could be restricted to people married for at least 80 years. Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria: 'people married for at least 80 years who reliable sources say had a long marriage'." A golden wedding anniversary marks 50 years of marriage. Whether your paternal grandparents are included on the list depends on which inclusion criteria there is a consensus for. If there is a consensus for the less restrictive inclusion criteria, your grandparents would be included. If there is a consensus for the more restrictive inclusion criteria, your grandparents would not be included. Cunard (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The criteria should not be so loose as to entertain the possibility of golden wedding anniversaries being included. schetm (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * marriages which have been reported as setting records for length Reported by whom, though? Unreliable sources that each claim the longest marriage in their town or village is the longest in the world or in the history of the world? A bunch of these sources appear to contradict each other, and we can probably assume that very few marriages last more than 80 years and virtually none more than 90 years, so virtually all marriages in this relatively narrow range. Both the Chand and Thomas marriages are fairly well sourced and might merit articles by themselves, but the majority of marriages of lengths within this range are actually not that far off the top spot in terms of number of years, relatively speaking, and there are probably an abundance that also fall within this range but haven't been reported as such because of poor record keeping, or poor reporting, or the persons themselves being private individuals and not wanting the attention (we have to remember that all of these people are extremely old, and when 80-year-old monarchs are abdicating because their advanced age impede their ability to handle their official duties, we can't assume that 100-year-old regular joes who have been regular joes their whole lives are all that happy to be dealing with press). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reported by reliable sources, of course. That's standard operating procedure on enwiki. The current mood at WP:Longevity stands against biographies of old people on WP:NOPAGE grounds, and I have a feeling that the Chand and Thomas marriages would get similar AfD noms, except there would be no merge target as this list would be deleted. The question for me is whether it would be better to have a broader stand-alone list or a few scattered biographies with little content save the birth and death dates of the couples and when they were married. I think that, in this case, the list as it stands is better able to serve the reader. schetm (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.