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. Consensus seems to be that this list is unencyclopedic and redundant. Mere consistency and the precedent of other articles/lists aren't valid in the discussion of a specific article, nor is a "conditional delete" statement. John Reaves (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by longevity[edit]

List of Philippine Presidents by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It's just a pointless and random article. I see no reason to have it. --Matjlav^(talk) 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would see no point for this article even if it was titled "list of Philippine people by longevity." This is just something too specific and unecyclopedic. Khoikhoi 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There was a precent-establishing discussion about other lists of Philippine presidents several months ago. I guess they missed this article. YechielMan 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm not a fan of lists but this is more pointless (less pointful?) than most.--killing sparrows 01:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps there are more civil words to use to label another's contributions besides "pointless" and "random". Perhaps one of the 6.5 billion people on Earth for some God-only-knows-reason at sometime will need to find out who the longest living Philippine president was, or needs to find out how long a certain president lived in relation to others. --Remi 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Don't we have something where you can sort a table by different fields? Abeg92We are all Hokies! 02:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fork of the featured List of Philippine Presidents. And there is a Wikitable sortable class for creating tables that are sortable by anything. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are many ways to rank things, those which have some sort of impact on the subject matter are justifiable, but since a president's longevity means nothing to the person's presidency, this is not one of those. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stephen. We already have the List of Philippine Presidents we dont need another one just sorted differently. GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, I know, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it does seem a failure of WP:CSB to have an identical article about US presidents and not about any other world leaders. --Charlene 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider that we also have List of U.S. Presidents by longevity, Earliest living United States president, Oldest living United States president, List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity, List of United States Presidents by date of death. How is the current article any different from any of these other than the location of the people in power? --Cyrus Andiron 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am surprising myself with this !vote, I'm usually something of a strong opponent of random "List of" articles, but Cyrus Andiron makes a very valid point that we have List of U.S. Presidents by longevity, of which this list is essentially a clone for another country. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article, but the US list survived an AfD attempt along with a batch of other, similar lists. That makes it precedent, not just "other stuff exists". Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm sorry if my 'pointless' comment offends, but this is trivia (IMHO). I can see no usefulness or any point to this organization of the presidents. As far as the US list (and many others), that seems more an example of WP:BIAS or US-centricity of WP than any valid precedent. Read the keep comments frome the AfD for the US Presidents list; Wikipedia should be a place for masses of information, and Very interesting collections all, and I came upon this page out of my own interest and would feel sad to see it go. Granted I have excerpted the shorter and more succinct !votes, but there are none that make a valid argument. The result of the AfD was no consensus, equivalent to the verdict not proven, in Scottish law. Again in my opinion, other stuff exists, and it too should be deleted.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 17:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Consistency and precedent matter. Presidents of the Phillipines are no less important or encyclopedic than leaders of Austria, Canada, Germany, and the United states. WP:BIAS is helpful for understanding why we should not delete articles that would be kept if they involved English-speaking or European countries. Considering that List of Austrian Chancellors by Longevity, List of Austrian Presidents by longevity, List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity, List of German Chancellors by longevity, and List of United States Presidents by longevity survived deletion review, this should too. I would also support merging this list with List of Philippine Presidents, but only if someone first makes that list sortable by longevity. -Fagles 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per List of United States Presidents by longevity. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for consistency and precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Fagles. I agree that if the longevity information is added and made sortable on List of Philippine Presidents then this can be deleted otherwise it should be kept. Davewild 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Comment I would lean towards keep, except for the overwhelming delete vote. I'm not saying I am swung by my fellow Wikipedians votes, but this issue seems to have quite a heated basis. Or perhaps I'm just reading between the lines where there is nothing to read. Either way, I'm not giving a vote either way. Jmlk17 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fagles. We must be consistent. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Philippines is a fairly large and significant nation deserving the same treatment as others.--T. Anthony 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this gets deleted I'm nominating List of United States Presidents by longevity out of spite. Just kidding, sorta. TheCoffee 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete iff other similar articles are deleted. --Howard the Duck 06:31, 26 April 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.