Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest American politicians


 * 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. Opinions are about evenly divided, and there is no "delete" argument that is so strong that it would compel deletion in the absence of consensus.  Sandstein  09:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

List of richest American politicians

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

the list is a synthesis of information not based on any reliable source ranking politicians by wealth. For an example of an article which isn't an example of original research, see List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth which is based on reliable sources.  Hot Stop  19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 20:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 20:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of problems here. It includes failed candidates, which means that its scope could be virtually limitless. There are many ways to estimate wealth; combining wealth estimates form different sources is problematic. It's not adjusted for inflation, which makes any estimates from different eras incomparable. Plus it's WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the SYNTH? I would be happier if you would please explain, once you have rested from your brave attempt to solve Poverty by claiming that the number of super-rich people is virtually limitless. And much as I hate the "Wikipedia is not compulsory" WP:CHOICE rule, it is the best antidote to the poison that is spread on AfD so often: "We cannot cope with this article". Go complain about not being able to do things you will not do anyway, somewhere else, to someone who cares. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing my delete vote based on the arguments made by User:Bearian and the surprising number of similar articles in Category:Lists of people by wealth. I stand by my concerns regarding the content, but acknowledge that these can be fixed through editing. Pburka (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which similar articles are you talking about? I couldn't find any other list of any countries richest politicians.   Hot Stop   05:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)  Hot Stop   05:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. I've fixed my comment. I meant the other articles in Category:Lists of people by wealth. These articles all face the same complications of comparing by wealth. Pburka (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fundamentally flawed. Per the 3 reasons described by Pburka, North8000 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Difficult to quantify, especially where spouses are concerned (cf. John Kerry, John McCain) and large family ownings and trusts are involved (cf. Kennedys, Rockefellers), and without including inflation-adjusted historical figures, destined to recentism.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, Very subjective and difficult to fully populate. Name should be "List of richest American Politicians which WP editors were able to find an source for an estimate of their wealth at one point in time."  Arzel (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Difficult" is not a WP rule. Thank you for the arguments that a ranked list based on numbers is "subjective", and that sources are problematic because they are created "at one point in time". Creating a Reductio ad absurdum against some arguments might take some effort, but not that last one. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will clarify. Subjective What is the basis for inclusion?  The list includes some people that where actual politicians and some people that simply ran for a public office.  There is a false equivelancy to assume that they are the same.  Pete Coors, for example, ran for public office once, but is not considered a politican per se.  Some that are no longer in politics are included, but not all.  At what point is there wealth relevant, now or at the time that they were an elected politician.  Additionally there are people who are missing from that group.  As an incomplete and poorly defined metric the list itself has little value, which begs the question, "What is the point of this list?"  Arzel (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - it seems pretty arbitrary who is listed. For example, Meg Whitman and Tom Golisano have never held political office before, but are listed.  Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, and Donald Trump have all run for President and are not listed. I think a list like this could be appropriate if it had a firm criteria and not a pejorative title (e.g., name it "list of American politicians with a net worth over $500 million) and make the requirement for inclusion that someone has actually held elected office. Sure, it's a synthesis, but so are the overwhelming majority of our lists and categories.  What reliable sources are there for List of African-American Republicans or List of Jews in sports? --B (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The inclusion criteria are murky at best. Thus I don't see how this list is practically manageable. Perhaps a re-titled article with clearer inclusion criteria would be OK. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 15:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS —Eustress talk 21:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the SYNTH? Please explain yourself. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * True or false? List of African-American Republicans and List of Jews in sports are also syntheses?  I don't have a problem with deleting the article because it isn't a well-defined topic or because it's unmaintainable, but please tell me how this one violates the synthesis rule, but the overwhelming majority of our intersection list articles do not.  Basically anything that is list of XXXXX YYYYs is going to be original research / synthesis.--B (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * because for the list in question here, someone had to rank each individual. No ones ranking Republicans by blackness in the list you brought up  Hot Stop   00:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So if the list simply removed the rankings, it wouldn't constitute original research/synthesis? --B (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * there would still be concerns over issues others have mentioned. How are politicians defined is one of them. Why lump current office holders with failed one-time candidates? And the list doesn't seem to have much of purpose to me unless it can definitely rank. Which it can't without being a synthesis.  Hot Stop   01:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ranking is not SYNTH, it is a mathematical operation. You have issues with the varying success of the careers of politicians on the list; this is already addressed by the "Position" and "Dates" fields of the list. But that is a matter for discussion on the Talk:List of richest American politicians page, in any case. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathematical operations are specifically allowed by WP:CALC (not to be confused with WP:Calculation). The wealth estimates are millions of dollars apart; not close enough to each other for concerns about varying sources to be of consideration. The mathematical operation to convert previous decades' monetary value into modern, should anyone care to perform it, falls under CALC as well. Anarchangel (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, mathematical operations are allowed, but the problem with the rankings is that we have no definitive evidence that we aren't leaving someone off of the list. If we are leaving someone off the list who should be #6, then all of the rankings are wrong.  I don't see a problem with just removing the rankings ... and since we have no real way of knowing if the rankings are right, removing them is a pretty good idea. --B (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are no arguments to delete that are not identifiable as erroneous, as I contend I have shown above, and all are arguably red herrings, if only by mistake. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - most of the sources are reliable, and while there is some synthesis of information, that can be fixed with normal editing. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I will go on and come out and say what I've been hinting at - keep with rework. The article should be renamed to something neutral and the scope well-defined (something like List of current American office holders with a net worth over $500 million) and the rankings can be removed.  I think the rankings are a good objection - since it's not a complete list we honestly have no way of knowing if the #7 person on the list is really #7 or if there is really someone else that we don't know about who should be ahead of him.  If those changes are made, I see no reason whatsoever not to keep the article. --B (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with arguments listed by Anarchangel and Bearian. Dezastru (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Others have been able to identify inclusion criteria that make such a list feasible.  Dezastru (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The so-called synthesis in this article is merely a simple mathematical calculation. Routine mathematical calculations do not count as original research.  Them From  Space  16:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The ranking are problematic. We have a recent source stating that in 1957, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.'s "fortune was estimated to be between $200 and $400 million ($1.6 to $3.5 billion in today's dollars)". Does that mean he should be ranked at 8th ($400 million in 1957 dollars) or 16th ($200 million in 1957 dollars)? Or should the criteria be adjusted to place him 2nd ($1.6 to $3.5 billion in 2012 dollars)? This source also differs on the amount calculated for Romney (only "$150 and $200 million" rather than the $250 million listed here). Whose sources do we use to determine the rankings? IMO, this lends credence to the idea that the rankings are subjective, and invalidates the argument that only "simple math calculations" are used to determine the order. Location (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per ThemFromSpace. This list isn't synthesized. Multiple sources isn't always for combination.--Jun Nijo (talk) 06:00, 22 May 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.