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 Keep. Article may be need to be cleaned up, but it satisfies notability requirements.Madchester 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of long-living organisms[edit]

List_of_long-living_organisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

This article is very inproper.having an article on long living organisms first of all should be longest living, because that should be what it is describing as it is useless to simply list organisms that have had a relativly long life time.And even if it was the oldest living organisms, that is a very contraversial topic that can not be covered by a list because there is so much contraversy as to what is the oldest arganism.If necessary, I propose atleast having an article like the one on largest organism, an article which does not list the ones generally considered the largest but talks about the indecidedness about the topic and has examples of possible candidates, and does not specualte at which is "the largest". Rodrigue 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator seems to be requesting cleanup, anyway, and not deletion. If there is a problem with the format or the wording of the article that is very easily fixed. Anyway there are sufficient sources here and the article is sufficiently encyclopedic. It could do with a rename, perhaps, and some cleanup as advocated by the nominator but there are no policy-based arguments to delete this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think you understood.What I am saying is the information on the article is entirely useless, because there can't be a list of oldest organisms if there is dispute about it.I was saying the list should be deleted, and that a very different article could be written about the topic, and there is no one "oldest organism". Rodrigue 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the author defines "long-living". JuJube 16:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and cleanup. List needs more information, but it is encyclopedic. merge if there is a list of longest-living organisms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebent (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep as a good almanac type list. Having an article doesn't mean there can't be a list or the other way around. "Long living" is self evident, and should not require deletion. The rules for entry can be tightened or better defined, without deleting the list. I think "longest living" would be the best title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Rodrigue is attempting to prove a point because one of his articles is up for deletion. DCEdwards1966 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my article is being deleted so I want to delete an unrelated article just for fun.I don't appreciate your allegations towards me, especially when I have a reasonable argument anyways.At the very least the article should be moved to Oldest organism and get rid of the redirect, because then it would be more like the article on Largest organism.The reason that article is not a list is because there is no universally agreed upon "largest organism", and the same goes for this article.

And what is with the tittle being long-living organisms and not oldest living.There can be an endless list of organisms that have lived very "long" depending on your definition of the term, but it should be about the organisms ones that outlived mthe other ones.Can the tittle atleast be changed to the right term first of all. Rodrigue 21:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my article is being deleted so I want to delete an unrelated article just for fun. Nuff said. Speedy close, please. JuJube 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic man,I was merely responding to what another person said about what my intensions for this deletion was.

And for the record, that article he was referring to was being deleted because it was a list of most valuable comic books, and I'm deleting this article for the same reason because a list doesn't qualify for this subject, so by that logic I would want my own article deleted as well, which is rediculous.This is useless, this is a discussion of whether or not to delete a page and if someone wants to make allegations that is what talk pages are for. Rodrigue 22:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Improving the article would be nice.--sin-man 09:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MoveWell the article may not have to be deleted, but it should be more like the largest organism article, in addition to moving this article to the proper tittle.The other list is more of an article but it has a list of largest organisms in addition to a good lead-in that describes the complexity of measuring such a thing. Rodrigue 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's sourced, harmless and a good read for kids. Stammer 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment its sourced, harmless and a good read for kids, what kind of argument is that?Rodrigue 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a jocular rephrase of Richard Arthur Norton's "good almanac type list". Stammer 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perhaps if this list was made more like a list for a biology article it could be considered encyclopedic Feydakin 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting list. Axl 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the list is interesting but maybe can be renamed like richard suggest yuckfoo 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:42, 13 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.