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 all. Sr 13 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity[edit]

Brought here because of a contested prod (which was removed without reason). Listcruft, and pretty useless if you ask me Whs itc hy 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Also nominated are:[reply]

Added in other pages --Whs itc hy 06:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Worse than useless - it would have to be periodically updated. Clarityfiend 06:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting as trivia, but not encyclopedic. Hard to maintain accurately. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Comment Prod removal reason has been given on the Peace Prize's talk page.
Please leave my article alone . Thier are list of longevities for all categories in the nobel prize. This was the last Category to be completed in the nobel prize of longevities. --76.49.53.76 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not find this list any useless then the one about some silly Final Fantasy video game or for that matter some other "useless" material.--76.49.53.76 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
--Whs itc hy 06:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a bizarre categorization and certainly irrelevant in any encyclopedic sense. Other than the fact that science Nobels are generally given out for work done 10 or 20 years earlier, I don't see the point. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Previous AfD for some of these is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Could any admins be on the look out for socks. I have suspect of them coming here.--Whs itc hy 07:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - completely pointless way of listing extremely notable people. - fchd 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "by longevity" lists - pointless and stupid way of listing people. "Because we can" is not a good reason for breaking out these goofball lists. Otto4711 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. In addition, the creator of the article may need a lesson in ownership of articles and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Hnsampat 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, and agree with the WP:OWN comment above. hmwith talk 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. JJL 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Please look at WP:NOT#INFO number 9. Thank you. --Whs itc hy 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We seem to have an epidemic of "...by longevity" lists recently. Let's see that their longevity is very limited, please. This particular group is truly bizzare (per Dhartung). Realkyhick 22:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no relevance to anything. DGtal 00:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant and WP:NOT#INFO. Carlosguitar 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are in accordance with wikipedia's policy on compilations. It's useful, almanac style information. It is in keeping with WP:LISTS. It is neither indiscriminate, nor of interest only to a very restricted number of people. Deletion of these lists would be an abuse of the listcruft policy (which is actually just an essay... not a policy). Please note the keep and delete arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity 2nd nom... since wikipedia is not a democracy... these arguments should be weighed on their own merits.--Dr who1975 01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is pure trivia. I suspect that any attempt to include laureates' ages in the list of Nobel Laureates would be swiftly be reversed. The longevity of a laureate is but a biological fact, and completely irrelevant to what they did, or how they did their jobs, as such has no value I can see except to fulfill the anal obsession of certain editors to sort everything by every imaginable criterion. The only exception I see is the case of monarchs, whose occupations/roles were invariably linked to their longevity. The dates of birth and death of each laureate is already included in the individual subject article for anyone who is interested to look it up there. wiki is not a directory of every characteristic of Nobel laureates. Ohconfucius 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the relationship of creativity to biological characteristic should not be assumed to be without interest. For example, the median age of biologists was 79 years, but of physicists 71. DGG 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be "Interesting", but would be original research to try and draw any correlation between creativity:longevity. Ohconfucius 02:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... that would be original research. It's a good thing the pages in question don't do that. Maybe DGG did on this page... but that's it.--Dr who1975 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's suppose a gerontologist wanted to write an article on the intellectual activities and contributions of great scientists after age 85. These lists would be a great place to start. Yes, there is effort involved in maintaining this page, but that's not a reason for deletion, especially as the maintenance could be turned over to a bot. Matchups 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but these lists don't help when looking at their age at their date of contribution, merely their age at death. A scientist could have made their great discovery at 25, but lived to 90. I simply don't see where this list helps. - fchd 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity 2nd nom we should only have these page for the leaders of states, however if someone wants to make a sortable table on the main list that is fine. Davewild 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The articles are nothing more than statistics (WP:NOT#INFO nr. 9) without encyclopedic context. If there had been published studies on the longevity of Noble Prize winners (and a wikipedia article about them) this might have had some value, but right now it is just information that is without encyclopedic use, and wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is true. Pax:Vobiscum 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.