Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the youngest mayors in the United States


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

List of the youngest mayors in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete - indiscriminate list of information, original research. No boundary on what constitutes the "youngest" mayor, and every mayorship in the world has a youngest person who was elected to it. Fails WP:OR by the synthesized opinion that there is an encyclopedic relationship between "young" and "mayor". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article currently has a variety of problems. For example, Jonathan Wallace is identified as being the "Youngest township trustee in history. Possibly youngest elected official in the United States." But (1) a township trustee is not the same thing as a mayor (it's closer to being the civil township equivalent of a city council member), and (2) this article lists at least seven people who became elected officials at younger ages than Wallace did. The article also needs to established a defined upper boundary as to the maximum age a person can be to qualify for this list; currently some of the people on the list are people who became mayors in their 30s, which seems in my opinion too old to be worthy of mention on a "youngest mayors" list. It may be possible to improve this list sufficiently to get me to change my recommendation, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It you're good enough, you are old enough. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? There is a legal precedence involved here called age of candidacy which generally prohibits or otherwise discourages people under the age of majority from holding office; the fact that young people still do despite these laws is notable. • Freechild   'sup?   08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone might want a list like this. They might also want a list of the Oldest Mayors. (They may even want a list of Old Grey Mares...) For the moment, and excepting the creator of the list, I can't see who. Difficult to define mayor - difficult to define 'youngest'. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: there is no difficultly in defining mayor, particularly in the U.S.. The definitions for "youngest" are provided by the citations used in the article; check the references for further distinction. • Freechild   'sup?   08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not indiscriminate, although the description of the list could be tightened up more. It's not WP:SYNTHESIS, as a number of the sources are about young mayors or the youngest mayors.  I think if this were the youngest by state (i.e. one person per state) it might be a reasonable list. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it's not "indiscriminate", although it suffers from other problems. Although the adjective indiscriminate seems to be used only with the noun list (kind of like babbling brook or abject poverty), not all lists merit that term.  Simply put, an "indiscriminate list" is one that has no information to distinguish (i.e., to discriminate) between one item on the list and the next, such as a lazy list of blue-links.  I tend to agree with the nominator's point that there are no boundaries on this one, and in that sense, it doesn't discriminate against anyone who doesn't have proof.  Thus, if one wants to claim that he's the youngest person to have ever been the Mayor of Heehaw, California, he gets on here.   There's one guy on here whose claim to immortality was that he was elected mayor of a town of 1,000 at the age of thirty, and there are others.  For the most part, it's trivia, and not very interesting trivia at that.  Mandsford 17:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that there are definite improvements that need to be made, certainly the question of who should be included and count as "youngest" is absolutely valid. Perhaps limit it to mayors under 30?  Because of the relative rarity of young elected officials (and legal barriers as well) it is certainly novel and interesting material.  Every time a young person is elected to a post such as mayor there is plenty of media coverage that follows.  It is good to have the historical context for that, to see others who have preceeded this person.  Interesting also to see which of these young elected officials continued to have a successful career in politics and who didn't.  Also, with the amount of doubt people place upon the capabilities of young people, it is especially helpful to be able to point to a list of young adults who have achieved something and been placed in charge of a city through the democratic process.  I think it should be fixed and cleaned up, but absolutely should be kept.  KPalicz (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How does setting an age limit avoid being arbitrary? "Point[ing] to a list of young people who have achieved something" is POV-pushing to make a point. Coverage of a young person's being elected might make the individual elected official notable per WP:GNG but it doesn't make a list of youngest mayors notable or encyclopedic. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are You The Cow Of Pain?, I hope that you can simply hear the opportunity to resolve this disagreement rather than attacking proposals. While setting an age limit is arbitrary, I think it's important to consider the value of the proposing editor's voice, rather than the specific proposal. Please don't make personal attacks and keep this civil. • Freechild   'sup?   14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attack and am non-plussed that you would make the claim. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of lists on Wikipedia. List of social networking sites, list of unusual deaths (?!), list of search engines, list of linux distributions, list of ethnic slurs, List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction and all sorts of other lists of no greater utility or interest than a list of youngest mayors.  If you agree that individuals who are elected young are notable by themselves, why wouldn't a list of them be also useful and notable?  KPalicz (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The existence of some other list or lists doesn't mean that this list should also exist. Each list and article stands or falls on its own merits. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * POV-pushing is an odd claim. The article does not advocate that young people should become mayors, which would be a POV, it just records that some have, which is unusual and notable, as the sources bear out. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The justification given for this list in the above keep !vote is absolutely POV-pushing. It's saying that the list should exist to counter the POV of people who doubt the capabilities of young people. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When people overcome the prevailing wisdom about their group that makes it notable. When that 13 year old climbed Everest he wasn't notable just for climbing it, he was notable for being 13 and overcoming the perceptions about 13 year olds.  If a 95 year old, or a pregnant woman climbed Everest it'd be notable as well.  I wasn't pushing a POV just explaining why this page in particular is notable, interesting, and a valuable resource for Wikipedia to keep.  KPalicz (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. It does not mean for purposes of an article "unusual" or "deviating from the norm" or "overcoming the prevailing wisdom". It means "coverage in reliable sources that is significantly about the subject". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: People magazine, MSNBC, San Francisco Chronicle, Texas Almanac, The New York Times, and Time magazine are all cited in this article. According to WP's definition the article is well in-line with those expectations. • Freechild   'sup?   07:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am the creator of the article. Since 2007 the article's 100s of edits have reflected it's use and a variety of editors' interest. And while it does have "problems," we should edit the article rather than delete it. I intended the article to only include references to individuals where reliable sources referred to a person as the "youngest mayor," whatever the circumstance. This includes the size of town, which isn't a worthy worthy criteria; rather it's whether a citation is reliable. • Freechild   'sup?   04:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I cleaned the article and removed all non-cited entries, as well as entries that weren't mayors. This article suffered poor maintenance, not bad construction. The sources cited in the article now refer to the mayors as "youngest" in any sense of the word. • Freechild   'sup?   14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is 100% verifiable, and is a topic of interest (indiscriminate collections of information are not of interest). No original research will be required to determine whether someone belonged on this list if we specify that this list includes mayors under 30. Just have a criterion like this and make it a specific cut-off. Wiwaxia (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain why "under 30" is a non-arbitrary cutoff but "under 31" isn't. "It's interesting" is not the standard for a Wikipedia article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Of interest" is well-defined in its Wikipedia sense:

o However, the diary itself would be both actionable and interesting to certain nutritionists and many historians.Wiwaxia (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By "interesting", we don't mean "interesting to everyone", or "interesting to you". Rather, we seek information that is potentially interesting to, at least, some small but significant proportion of the world's population. For example:
 * The date of the Battle of Hastings is interesting to people interested in 11th century history
 * The time that King Harold was killed in said battle is interesting to slightly obsessed historians of the Norman Conquest
 * The general diet of King Harold, as opposed to his contemporaries, is interesting to historians of 11th century nutrition.
 * The time that King Harold had breakfast 183 days prior to said battle is interesting to no-one, even if King Harold had kept a meticulous diary which has been preserved to the present day.
 * Keep per improvements. Actually, under 30 (i.e. no older than 29 at time of election) would be less arbitrary than most other numbers (31, 29, 37, etc.), since it was one of the benchmarks that was written into the U.S. Constitution in 1788.  For whatever reason-- and I'm sure that there was someone back 222 years ago who made the same argument that you did-- the consensus of that convention was that there had to be a minimum age for people to become U.S. Representatives (25 years old) and to become U.S. Senators.  Arbitrary as it was, the consensus from that convention was that no matter how talented a person was, no matter how accomplished, "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years" (Article I, section 3, paragraph 3).  Bear in mind that the discussion here is whether the list should be kept or deleted.  If it's deleted (which is what you want), then the boundaries are a moot point.  If it's kept, then some restrictions need to be put on it, and no older than 29 works for me.  Mandsford 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words, there's no real justification for setting any age standard (the Constitution, which makes zero mention of mayors or their ages, notwithstanding) that isn't completely and utterly arbitrary. If the election is the day before one's 30th birthday it's significant but if it's the day after it's not. The same person as a 29 year 364 day-old mayor is an exemplar of "youngest" but as a 30 year 1 day-old mayor isn't. Stuff and nonsense, and the perfect illustration of why this list is reliant on original research. You have looked to one set of age limits and synthesized from them a criterion for a list to which the age limits do not pertain. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note Let's note that currently the article calls for inclusion of folks under the age of majority. If there is a movement to set an age I would agree with Mandsford to follow the Constitutional language; I would also consent to lowering the threshold for inclusion to the age of 18, which as the voting age set by the Constitution creates a notable marker. • Freechild   'sup?   17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's also note that you too have looked to a document with an age limitation written into it and synthesized an artificial inclusion criterion. The arguments for various ages at which one is considered young enough inexorably leads back to the conclusion that this is an unsustainable list. Why 18 (voting age) and not 30 (Senate eligibility)? Why 30 and not 25 (House eligibility) or 35 (presidential eligibility)? On what is any age limit for the inclusion on a "youngest" list being based here, other than the impermissible personal opinions and preferences of individual editors? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources cited throughout the article each refer to the people included as the "youngest" in some sense. • Freechild   'sup?   03:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one under the age of 80 had been elected mayor of Fumblebuck then a 79 year old would be properly described as "the youngest mayor or Fumblebuck". Every jurisdiction with a mayor has a youngest mayor. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a safe bet that most of the remainder of the thread is going to be a discussion between Freechild and Are You The Cow of Pain, with each side responding to what the last one had written-- both good editors making some great points, well done. Altogether, eight people (including Free and Cow) have made !votes on whether to keep or delete.  I'll try my best to make this my last comment-- I'd like to hear from a ninth or tenth person before it's closed out.  Mandsford 14:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is clearly something people come looking for information on -- there are 80,600 Google hits on the phrase "who is the youngest mayor". Youngest mayors is an established topic, not indiscriminate information. People would want to look this up in an encyclopedia, and with an encyclopedia with the scope of Wikipedia, may expect to find it. Plus, with the improvements made to the list, there's no original research required to establish who's a youngest mayor. With this in mind, I can't vote any other way than keep. Subliminable (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS is not a measure of notability. WP:INTERESTING is not a measure of notability. The original research is not in declaring that a particular mayor or another is the youngest in a particular mayorship. The original research is in declaring that there is an encyclopedic relationship between "mayor" and "youngest" and in setting any inclusion limitations. There are tens of thousands of mayorships in the United States and each of them has a "youngest" person elected to it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You say it is original research to declare that there is an encyclopedic relationship between "young" and "mayor", but these pages suggest that young mayors are an established topic:


 * http://www.ymn.org.uk/
 * http://www.gazette.net/stories/063006/polia%20s192906_31951.shtml
 * http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1172711
 * http://www.wuwm.com/programs/news/view_news.php?articleid=4736
 * This is what the Google results for "who is the youngest mayor" point to: that young mayors are an established topic. You say that WP:INTERESTING does not make for notability, but as Wiwaxia noted, there is a difference between a Wikipedia reader finding an article "interesting" by his/her peculiar opinion and the kind of "interestingness" that makes an article encyclopedic. Subliminable (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two of the four sources are for the UK and have no bearing on a US-centric list. The others might serve as resources for an article about the supposed phenomenon of younger people in American political leadership positions but the sourcing to write an article about the general topic of youth in politics doesn't mean that a list of youngest US mayors passes encyclopedic muster. Even if it did, the definitional problems and the indiscriminate nature of the list persist. No one has yet explained why a mayor who is elected at the age of 29 years 11 months is a "young mayor" for purposes of the list but that same person elected at age 30 years 1 day is not. No one has explained how they can justify defining "youngest" as being "below a particular age" without its being arbitrary and original research. No one has explained how the list is not indiscriminate for having potentially tens of thousands of entries, one for each mayorship in the United States. "Interestingness" is not under any definition a standard for Wikipedia articles. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is nothing wrong with having this relevent and interesting article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And once again "interesting" is not a standard for WP articles. "Relevant" is a matter of opinion and in my opinion this information is irrelevant, so there you go. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - Please note Articles for deletion/List of the youngest elected officials in the United States, the list from which much of the content of this list was derived or vice versa. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, closing admin, and if you even look at that all, please note that six of the nine people here didn't even participate in that discussion... Mandsford 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, since AFD is not a vote. The stronger argument carries the day, not numerical superiority. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional notes: According to this AfD, there is an editor on this page who has taken it upon themselves to delete this article. The majority of deleting authors cited needs to correct the content of this article, rather than the actual topic of the article, which only one editor has (repeatedly) mentioned. Please note from the history of the article I have addressed those concerns through extensive editing since those editors weighed in. • Freechild   'sup?   01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like the closing editor to note that even though AYTCOP repeatedly states that "interestingness" does not make something encyclopedic, there is an established Wikipedia definition of what "interesting" means in the encyclopedic sense, which I cited with the example with King Harold. An article should not be kept just because the odd reader comes up on it and incidentally finds it "interesting", but if people within a certain interest group come to the Internet just to look it up (like the date of the Battle of Hastings), it has a genuine encyclopedic value due to its interestingness. This article falls into the latter category. I have this Wikipedia page squirreled away on my hard drive, but I can't find it here -- a search of the Internet does not reveal what page it's from. The same page states that information should not be obvious (that Margaret Thatcher regularly breahted in and out hundreds of times per day is obvious, but that she sometimes survived on only four hours of sleep is not obvious). Something to keep in mind. Wiwaxia (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2010 (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.