Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest United States Senators


 * 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. Sigh. Let's get through the easy part first. The deletes outnumber the keeps by a 2:1 margin, and on top of that, several of the keeps make arguments which aren't supported by policy.

Now, let's move on to the part that makes me sigh. I have not looked at the AfD for List of the oldest United States House of Representatives or List of the longest-lived United States Governors, but seriously, how could some of these be good topics for lists, and others not? I'm not saying I know which is the right answer, just that it seems hard to fathom that the same answer shouldn't apply to them all. It really seems like this whole old people AfD fest should get put on hold while people go off and come up with some coherent set of guidelines which can then be applied uniformly. End of rant. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

List of the oldest United States Senators

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no encyclopedic value to this list. Living a long time has no relationship to spending time in the US Senate at some point. It appears to attempt to cover every Senator that reached their 90th birthday. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Your definition of non-encyclopedic is quite expensive. While you can argue as such, the limited and not very strict guidance given on what qualifies as a non-encyclopedic topic does not back up your point. Star Garnet (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Specific nonencyclopedic topics include non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Senators are an encyclopedic topic, but their longevity is trivia and completely unrelated to their notability. Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list qualifies as an excessive list of statistics (except that the statistic is irrelevant.) Wikipedia is also not any of a very long list of terrible ideas. If this is notable, then why not have a List of the oldest child prodigies or List of the oldest mineralogists? Pburka (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, you are going off of your preconceived notion of 'nonencyclopedic' that is not spelled out as such in WP:NOT. While I would certainly agree with you on, e.g., List of oldest buildings on Kansas colleges and universities, (in my non-unique opinion) age is an inherent categorizing factor among defined, limited groups of people, particularly when all members of said group have or are by default eligible for an article of their own. See Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders for further discussion and comparison to other similar cases. Star Garnet (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At least the oldest buildings on Kansas colleges have always been buildings! This is a list of people who, at some point, were senators, and who then went on to live for a long time. It might be more accurately titled List of the oldest people who were also United States Senators. Pburka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL explains that "it's useful" isn't a good argument, and WP:LISTN explains why lists like this one aren't notable. Pburka (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing edit war on this page about whether User:Dangermouse600 is a WP:SPA. DM600 edits almost exclusively on the topic of longevity, but the account wasn't recently created and has contributed meaningful edits outside of WP:AFD. Whether or not DM600 qualifies as a SPA isn't very important, so I suggest dropping it. Pburka (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per most of the the keep arguments at Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders. This is not the strongest of list topics for cross categorizing, but not enough for deleting.  Every entry can be referenced to a bio page and the ages are compiled from such. OR doesn't apply to this list in my opinion. There is clearly defined criteria for inclusion with no ambiguity. It's a list of people that are obviously notable and factoring in longevity which is at least arguably notable as well.  I see no strongly compelling reason to delete this.   RoadView (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Living into the 90s is not notable, it's very common. To verify visit any care home or retirement community. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Czolgolz (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic list that is an excellent example of an appropriate standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR in that there are no reliable sources that actually talk about "oldest Senators", this list seems to have been compiled and synthesised from other sources. WP:LISTN also would seem to apply here -nobody apart from Wikipedia seems to discuss these individuals as a set.  Senators who were aged while they held office might be an interesting article if a source could be found that covers that.  Note that some of the "Keep" !votes above are making arguments not based in policy, and the closing admin should disregard these.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC) The sister List of the oldest United States House of Representatives members was just deleted. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While the result at Articles for deletion/List of the longest-lived United States Governors, for a much more similar page, was keep. Star Garnet (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On what planet is U.S. Senator more akin to a state governor than a member of the U.S. House of Representatives? David in DC (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:LISTN of the highest degree. --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:LISTN says that for a stand-alone list to be notable, the topic of the list must be notable. I cannot find significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources about the long-livedness of current or former members of the U.S. Senate. Or long-lividness, for that matter. The essay WP:LISTCRUFT and the policy at WP:NOT apply. David in DC (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not seem to satisfy WP:LISTN, which requires that multiple independent, reliable sources discuss the topic as a whole.  This is just a random, indiscriminate list of old people who were senators and how long they lived. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't a list of the longest termed senators or anything it's just a list of the oldest people who happened to have US Senators. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per NinjaRobotPirate's rationale. This appears to be original research per WP:OR, and the specific list topic (oldest U.S. Senators") lacks notability per WP:LISTN and WP:GNG with significant coverage of that topic in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2016 (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.