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. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 12 May 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)

This article was deleted through AfD. DRV overturned, concluding that the closer was wrong to ignore completely rationales based on precedent and consistency. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For completeness, the first AfD can be found here. Discussions on the equivalent page for US presidents (this one), can be seen here and in the block nomination here. AndyJones 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. Also, assessing the comments in those discussions, I think Xoloz's summary above would be more complete if it said "...rationales based on precedent, consistency and bias...". AndyJones 16:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivia pulled out of the articles and stuck into a pointless table. President-cruft, for lack of a better term. Useless information pretending to be ana rticle. And lest I be accused of bias, I think that all articles for leaders of any nation by longevity should be deleted without regard to the nation, its size, its importance on the world stage or anything else. Precedent is useful to look at but not 100% binding as Wikipedia is not a court of law and consensus can change. Otto4711 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ALL articles ... by longevity. Per my arguments on American Pres. AfD and Phil. Pres. Deletion Review. Berserkerz Crit 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as longevity has very little to do with political office (age at election can be argued as relevant, by contrast). --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The equivalent article for United States presidents just went through AFD, and was kept. Only reason I'm bothering with this is because it's horrible that the United States gets special treatment. TheCoffee 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Then we should vote a resounding Delete ALL. Berserkerz Crit 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is still not paper. A table of Philippine presidents sorted by longevity is about a subject that was interesting enough for someone to take the trouble of creating it. The longevity of British monarchs, popes, and other leaders are sources of legitimate curiosity, and there is no reason why the presidency of the Philippines (or the U.S. presidency, for that matter) should be held in any less regard. And please don't hand me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The longevity of important leaders is a matter of legitimate curiosity, and if we don't have similar articles for every such office, it's because they haven't been gotten around to yet. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - things that are the subject of legitimate curiosity are deleted every single day from this encyclopedia. That something is a subject of legitimate curiosity is not sufficient to make it automatically suitable for inclusion. As much disdain as you have for the other stuff exists argument, that's all you're offering. You're offering up the existence of a bunch of other articles as an excuse for this one. Not to mention offering totally unsupportable speculation regarding the reason why other articles don't exist as if their non-existence somehow supports this article. The fact that Wikipedia isn't paper is not a license to keep every article ever written, and the effort that someone put into writing an article is also irrelevant not to mention a base appeal to emotion. Otto4711 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Precedent and analogy are perfectly good arguments, at least as far as I can see; this is the biggest problem with the canned response of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many of the articles found here are the work of good faith contributors. If keeping ever in mind the fact that each article is in fact the fruit of an unpaid volunteer's labour is a "base appeal to emotion," I confess. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, all sorts of fruits of our labors, including mine, have been deleted as a result of this process. It's unfortunate that the time someone puts into such articles wasn't spent on articles that were within WIkipedia policy and guidelines, but that's not an excuse for keeping an article that doesn;t pass said policy and guidelines. WP:SOMEONEWORKEDREALHARDONIT is not grounds for keeping anything. Otto4711 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. If this information is indeed a source of legitimate curiosity for users, then it is as deserving as other articles of the same nature. For one thing, there are people who make Wikipedia articles, in my opinion, out of interest and curiosity in the subject being questioned, and perhaps a good number of articles are (possibly) written on that premise. And to quote: "...But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible." --Sky Harbor 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the many good reasons at this AFD and all the related ones. And might I once again add that this sort of information would and does appear in almanacs. One of Wikipedia's aims, much as some may not like it, is to compile this information. --JayHenry 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is an almanac, this entry fits that description --Work permit 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: List of United States Presidents by longevity has now survived two deletion reviews. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia/almanac, we should treat similar articles similarly. An encyclopedia or almanac is internally consistent, so it would be unencyclopedic/unalmaniacal not to be consistent. As far as I know, no AFD of a presidential longevity list has ever lead to deletion. Although consensus can change, we should only ignore precedents if 1) editors have changed their minds (which I doubt) 2) new arguments exist (none have been presented so far -- the "trivia" argument was exhaustively hashed out) or 3) there is some reasonable basis for distinguishing Philippine presidents from previous articles (which apparently nobody thinks). Do we really want to have this argument over and over for each article in Category:Lists of people by age? -Fagles 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the US Prezes article survived on two outcomes of "no consensus," which is not the same as a "keep" result. The value of two no consensus results as precedent is questionable at best. The jury is still out on these sorts of articles. As for the category you mention, if its articles should be deleted then they should be deleted regardless of how this AFD turns out. Otto4711 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Three "no consensus" results suggests that there is no consensus that these articles should be deleted. As for the category, it's true that if the articles should be deleted then they should be deleted. That doesn't mean that editors who disagree with the outcomes of deletion debates should nominate the same articles for deletion over and over and over. The outcome should be the same for all the "List of X Presidents by longevity" articles: all should be deleted or all should stay. It would be bad to have dozens of separate deletion nominations because they would either be a waste of time (because they all have the same result) or create inconsistency (because they have different outcomes). A group nomination might be appropriate, although there's no reason to think it would turn out differently from the last group nomination. -Fagles 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus can change. Berserkerz Crit 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although consensus can change, there is no reason to believe that it has changed, and thus there is no reason to think that the next nomination would turn out differently. There is no reason to believe that any editor has changed their mind since last week, and no new arguments for deletion have been presented. WP:CCC does not mean that it would be good for Wikipedia to have the same deletion debate every day forever. -Fagles 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete. IMHO, the length of time the past presidents lives collectively doesn't matter. If there's a issue about a past president's post-presidency, it'll better be addressed on that president's article. With that said, if this is deleted, then delete all List of <place> <position> by longevity without prejudice. --Howard the Duck 14:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Setting aside bias and precedent issues, this is a perfectly good article: valid and encyclopedic information, collated for the ease of anyone researching the subject. I'm surprised to see this sort of thing up on AfD and to see so many wikipedians supporting deletion, to be honest. Wikipedia not paper. AndyJones 07:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but only due to the fact that the similar article for US Presidents was kept. For the record, I am of the opinion that this type of article is unencyclopedic and does not pass WP:NOT. However, I have to argue for keeping this article for the sake of consistency, precedent and avoiding systemic bias in favor of US based articles. None of these articles should exist, but as long as consensus is for keeping one of them, the rest should stay on principle. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:16, 11 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.