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. Just on the numbers, this was overwhelmingly for keep. There were two principle policy arguments for deletion. The first is TRIVIA, but ultimately it is a matter of opiniion what counts as trivia and the majority clearly did not agree. The second rationale was NOTDIR (bullet #6). To some extent, whether or not a cross-categorisation is non-encyclopedic is also a matter of opinion, but the guideline also gives an exception unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. To demonstrate that, sources are required. One suitable source (from the Guardian) was offered in the discussion. One is a bit light, but in the absence of a strong argument that no further sources are likely to be forthcoming the NOTDIR rationale is also not strong enough to close against the majority. Note that the template of past AFDs was not posted (and this was mentioned) during the debate. It was posted by me immediately prior to the close. SpinningSpark 19:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living state leaders[edit]

List of oldest living state leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial, mundane cross-categorization between old people and living current and former heads of state, most of whom are obviously long out of office. Notability also isn’t temporary so once these people die most of them probably won’t hold any meaningful longevity record. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Three reasons to keep this article, with respect to previously deleted ones:

• This list will never get empty like the WW2 veterans list. As a state leader dies his place is taken by another one, so the article will last forever.
• Every entry on this article is adequately sourced, demonstrating the person in question is living. Finding sources and updating articles is quite difficult, especially for foreign languages, so this list often serves as a useful tool.
• The argument is of wide interest, well beyond Wikipedia community. To demonstrate it, it got coverage from The Guardian in 2018.

Regards, --Folengo (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I’m going to guess by “argument” you mean “topic”, but in any case that’d be better reasoning to keep an article on the oldest currently serving world leaders and not just any old timer who happened to have been a leader at some point. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, "topic", thanks. No, the Guardian article was also about former state leaders, as it mentions Do Muoi and Babiker Awadalla. This indicates wide interest in the topic. If necessary I could find many other articles about this exact topic (retired state leaders), even from BBC outlets. I just chose the Guardian as it was the most representative from an universally respected newspaper.--79.24.120.109 (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that's me above, obviously! --Folengo (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Greek Reporter wrote an article on this very list back in 2017. Clearly a subject that attracts public interest.--Folengo (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! I can't understand why people are so keen lately to get rid of all of these lists they are interesting and timeless. The exact order will change but there will always be an oldest living state leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:76AA:F758:586E:9DA3:4BC0:81A5 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:INTERESTING Dronebogus (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don’t think it should be deleted. I think the article should stay. A big Keep for me. The article is very interesting and I always love to check it daily. I don’t get why all the oldest living lists keep getting deleted… 99.17.5.70 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A lot of longevity articles are winding up on the chopping block lately, regardless of their encyclopedic nature or not. Just as an article should not necessarily be kept because countless people like, enjoy, and use it, an article should also not necessarily be deleted because someone doesn't like it. Bkatcher (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom. It fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY since the article is an unencyclopedic trivial cross-categorization of age and holding political office. The article is WP:OR that has a section with possible age ranges of individuals and a section for people who may or may not be state leaders. It also fails WP:LISTN, since I was able to find no evidence independent reliable sources actully list any of these people this way. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me if I don't understand correctly, but a trivial cross-categorization would be in my opinion to cross two wiki categories and list common members. In this case the categories would be "State leaders" and... "old people"? That's not such category, and can not exist as it completely subjective matter. So actually the purpose of this list is far from trivial. Age ranges for individuals are due to the fact only birth year without month/day is sometimes available for certain individuals. The page limits to source the information found by users, we don't add anything. And there is no mistake here, nor it undermines tha page validity and correctness. Finally, the Greek Reporte article I linked above does the exact same listing we do, only it is from 2017 and most people on that list are dead, but they were listed this exact way.--Folengo (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since, as the page mentions, several of the individuals' exact birthdates are unknown, plus the talk page mentions some individuals where it's unconfirmed if they're alive or dead, there is a strong chance that the page doesn't accurately represent what it purports to.2601:241:300:B610:F1DB:CD2C:6C69:7B40 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid argument. The dubious cases are explicitly excluded from the list. Renewal6 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there are some dubious items might suggest that list isn't accurate, as it admits that there are other people that might rank higher, so the list saying, for example that Bill Hayden is the 99th oldest living state leader isn't certain, as Abdul Rauf al-Kasm and Than Shwe might be older. Maybe if the article was title something like "Oldest living verifiable state leaders", then that would be better. 2601:241:300:B610:A042:9EA:D2EE:3995 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once you have to tack on like 50 different adjectives to an article title it almost always becomes an arbitrarily defined mess of WP:SYNTH. Dronebogus (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I accept your objection, but I don't think it is a valid deletion argument, it rather supports Keep, but improve . The ranks in the table simply depend on the available sources and on the condition that two birthdates are uncertain, so we don't assert per original research: "Bill Hayden is the verified 99th oldest living state leader in the world." The two uncertain birthdates do not affect the encyclopedic notability of the whole article. Renewal6 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The provided references in this article suffice to prove that reliable sources don't treat former state leaders like ordinary old people who happened to be state leaders decades ago, as the nominator suggests. Renewal6 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've made many contributions to this list article & even held an RFC concerning one of its entries. Don't want to throw all that out the window. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoodDay, I respect you, but you should really know better than to cite your personal devotion to an article as a reason to keep it. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Dronebogus (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of these aren't on the List of longest-living state leaders and wouldn't fit since both list have set the list at only 100 entries. Both list are perfectly valid navigational lists. Dream Focus 10:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This list also serves as a checklist for Living People Biographies (BLP). Users go periodically through it and check the (more obscure) names to find out if they died, which is not trivial, especially for foreign languages. If you believe this is only theoretical, I'll bring you an example: former Yemeni PM Abdul Latif Dayfallah had been dead for a year (with many Arabic obituaries) with no one noticing. For a year his page reported false information (and false, as sources existed stating the opposite) he was still alive. I found out and corrected it going through this very list. I do not exclude this could happen agai, so I repeat the list can be a useful tool. --Folengo (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a directory... and to what end? List of oldest living writers? List of oldest living members of royal families? List of oldest living actors? List of oldest living criminals? List of oldest living LGBTQ activists? Reasons to keep seem focused around the interesting factor... don't think that just because things are interesting means there has to be a list on WP. It's why the List of youngest state leaders is just a redirect and not an actual list. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just not true that keep voters focus on the article as being merely interesting. Secondly, every day the youngest man in the world is born, but this fact is obviously not reported by the media as opposed to longevity-related deaths. Renewal6 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slippery slope argument right there, which openly constitutes a fallacy and is therefore an invalid argument. And be very careful, as List of presidents of the United States is in fact something you'd find in a directory and may be deleted too. See how fallacies are double edged weapons?--Folengo (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m sorry but that’s a completely… well, absurd reducto ad absurdum. WP:DIRECTORY specifically describes “Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations” as inappropriate for WP, not “anything one might find in a directory”. Dronebogus (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Folengo's comments about that being a slippery slope argument. We have articles that list Oscar, Tony and Emmy Award winners – that does not mean that will lead to articles which cover the 1000s of other minor awards which exist for acting worldwide. Simply because there is limited interest, and they're not notable unlike the bigger awards. Also, I will add that something like List of oldest actors would never be a valid nor sound article because whilst there isn't an infinite amount of actors, it's still near impossible to measure effectively. World leaders are very limited in number, and well documented – thus practical to measure. --Jkaharper (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok going to provide something counter to my comment, if we allow list like List of breweries in Indiana... something so absurdly unencyclopedic, then there should be no issue approving this. Full disclosure, I believe this list and the Indiana list really shouldn't exist, but oh well. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Wasn't this article nominated for deletion a few years ago and the consensus was to keep? Per @Folengo: because this list will continuously exist and contains reliable sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Unlike List of notable surviving World War II veterans, this list is very well sourced. The article attracts a lot of contributions from editors and a quick Google confirms that the topic of oldest living or oldest lived state leaders is an area of interest for both media and academia, thus I consider it encyclopaedic, and not just a "trivial thing" as someone argues above. One of the other arguments given is that their overall longevity isn't relevant to their period in office. So what? Thousands of articles exist on the basis of personal attributes and the usefulness of noting it. For example, we have List of African-American actors, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and List of vegetarians. What is the relationship between being a black bisexual vegetarian and being a psychologist? Dubious at best, but other aspects of peoples' lives, including their longevity are still a point of interest and notability. --Jkaharper (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice usually connected to philosophical ideals, meaning it’s not as irrelevant as it initially seems. The list of LGB people is notable since the LGBTQ are a minority from birth and not just a biological stage in life most people inevitably go through; and the African American actors list, while more debatable, seems notable for similar reasons. Better comparisons would be “list of old people” or “list of old actors”. Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak argument. To me List of vegetarians seems a trivia collection about random people who casually happen to be vegetarian. It says nothing on their philosophy of life. One can be vegetarian for an infinite number of reasons, surely we can't get conclusions about someone, like: "Oh, he is vegetarian! That means he loves animals!". No, he's a vegetarian, full stop. That's all you know when reading that list. Every other thing is a mere supposition.

Also "state leader" is not a biological stage in life most people inevitably go through, you seems to suggest it is uncommon to be LGBT (by birth? What theory is this? Never mind) while it is utterly common to be state leaders. And it quite sounds ludicrous..--Folengo (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I’ll admit I was mostly playing devil’s advocate with the vegetarian thing, I honestly agree with you and think the information is more suited to a category. My argument was more that it’s just extremely common to eventually be old so it’s not super remarkable that lots of current and former world leaders are elderly. African Americans and LGBTQ people are also discriminated against so it’s more notable when there’s a cross-categorization of them. And yes I believe it’s generally agreed that a large part of sexual orientation and gender identity is genetic or formed very early in life, and that LGBTQ people are less common than heterosexual/cisgender people. Dronebogus (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Won't discuss further on LGBT matters, those are open questions between scholars, we are surely not qualified enough. Actually I find interesting state leaders live commonly way longer than the general population of respective states, as they usually have access to better medical care and so on. Searching on the web you will find many articles and even peer-reviewed papers on how Chinese ruling class life expectancy is almost 20 years more than Chinese general life expectancy. This is only to point out state leaders are not "common people" at all.--Folengo (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Then why not start an article on “longevity of leadership classes” or whatever and not a list that tells you none of that? Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: here's the previous discussion for deletion and the consensus was to keep. OP should have at least mentioned this, it seems it was completely neglected.--Folengo (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change, Folengo. Dronebogus (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, the nomination is legitimate. But a thing like this is not secondary and should have been pointed out immediately.--Folengo (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally Twinkle automatically lists whether or not this is a 2nd, 3rd etc. nomination but sometimes it doesn’t. I guess I’ll try to do that myself in such cases in the future. Dronebogus (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination's reasons to delete ("trivial, mundane...") are erroneous and not policy-based. We've already had a discussion, as ably noted by Folengo, which demonstrates that WP:BEFORE has not been followed and that WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Other applicable policies such as WP:ATD, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE also indicate that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure WP:TRIVIA and WP:MILL are also applicable. And “don’t bite the newbies” means “don’t be a jerk to newcomers”, not “coddle newcomers”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty sure that WP:TRIVIA doesn't mean what Dronebogus thinks it means. As well as reading that, they should also read WP:BLUDGEON. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually meant something more like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This article is largely just raw data with no explanation why the cross-categorization is notable. Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I will repeat my post from List of longest-living state leaders deletition page ([1]) - this is a topic that has enough media (and even scientific) appeal. Considering the similar lists in general, I think the fine line would be "if all subjects on the list are notable according to the Wiki standards". StjepanHR (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a lot of users are citing “it’s in the news” as evidence for keeping. But as Ode+Joy argued over on the AfD for List of longest-living state leaders, “[…] many things about state leaders are mentioned in the news. My concern is going down the trivia path. If we go that way, then how about other things mentioned n the news, e.g. number of girl friends? Would that be interesting? Encyclopedic?” Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehm... bring me a Guardian or BBC article about state leaders by number of girlfriends. Good luck.--Folengo (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not our task to valuate the scientific importance of "the news". A list of state leaders by number of girlfriends would affect the privacy of the included persons in a non-encyclopedic way, even if it was discussed by reliable sources, thus the comparison with this article is inappropriate. Renewal6 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep In my humble opinion, lists are important part of what makes wikipedia, wikipedia. Moguy (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal opinion is perfectly fine, but saying what basically amounts to “it’s good because it just is” really isn’t a great argument for keeping this article. Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, you want to keep it because it makes WP WP... is there a real policy or guideline you can refer to for your reason to keep it? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My line of thought is generally in line with what was said during the previous deletion nomination, not so much during this one, but the article is not without issues. I think the other article and this one would be better if merged and possibly reduced a bit and have a stronger stance on some of these questionable entries. --Killuminator (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an argument, just a worthless assertion such as "Keep. Essential." Renewal6 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short doesn’t equal meaningless. Wikipedia isn’t a place for trivia, but you don’t have to write that out to get your point across. Dronebogus (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though it is overall trivial, it is still a notable subject. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s kind of an oxymoron. Trivial information generally is not notable due to its arbitrary, meaningless nature. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:TRIVIA as well as the inherent WP:V issues with this kind of cross-categorisation. I am also extremely dubious about list articles that require lengthy introductions giving extensive arbitrary rules for inclusion in the list. I believe this criteria demonstrates it fails WP:LISTN and stumbles into WP:OR. Why stop at 100 people? Why not go all the way up to 200? Or why not stop at 50? Surely no sources discuss Bill Hayden as being one of the world's oldest heads of state (as there are 98 ahead of him). This cut-off is just at the whims of editors not backed up by sources. Heads of government, state and de facto leaders are all thrown in together- why? Do any sources give this kind of definition for this category? Was Bill Hayden even head of state? What qualifies as "significant international recognition"? I can see Tang Fei of Taiwan is on this list. This list with its quite random criteria for inclusion is just WP:SYNTH and WP:INTERESTING. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again. Why should the mere assertion that this article contains trivial content be more convincing than the assertion that it contains essential content?
  • I am convinced that the inclusion criteria for this article are more or less self-evident, I wasn't able to find "extensive arbitrary rules" in conflict with WP:LISTN.
  • The rankings in the table depend on the available sources, not on WP:OR.
  • In many countries, the head of state and the head of government are one and the same person. Subsuming them is thus not arbitrary WP:SYNTH, but perfectly reasonable.
  • Neither the political status of Taiwan nor the Australian head of state dispute do affect the encyclopedic notability in any way. Why do you think an AfD discussion on this article is the proper place to discuss these topics? Renewal6 (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The criteria for inclusion are arbitrary, e.g. "Leaders are not included if no reliable secondary sources have confirmed that the leader is alive within the last 10 years." Also, why are both current and former leaders lumped together? Lists of state leaders by age has the top 10 currently in office, but also contains various other lists that are just as bad as this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – must be news to you then that bios of individuals aged 90+ are moved to the Possibly Living People category if no sources from the last 10 years confirm that they're living. That's not "arbitrary criteria". That's standard enforcement of Wiki policy. Also, why shouldn't both current and former be included together? It would be an incomplete list and not accurately reflect the name of the article if you chose either/or. If someone is seeking information on who the oldest living state leaders are, they may be interested in current serving, formerly serving or both collectively. The colour-coding in the tables perfectly distinguishes former from current, so I don't even understand why you think this is an issue at all. --Jkaharper (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. That may be a Wikipedia category "policy", but that's got nothing to do with this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain your concrete objection to this inclusion criterion. In your opinion, Wikipedia policies are arbitrary and can be ignored? Renewal6 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is this "policy"? Even if it did exist, which I strongly doubt, it would only apply to categories, not lists. Apples, meet oranges. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Possibly living people. Your strong doubt doesn't seem to be based on evidence. Secondly, you did not explain anything. Please refrain from assuming arbitrariness without having previously taken into consideration improvability as per WP:AGF. Renewal6 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You call text on a maintenance category page "evidence"? Try reading WP:POLICY. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, Wikipedia policies that interfere with the retention of lists like this one are bad ideas and should be subjected to constant criticism until they are changed. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Yes it definitely more trivia based but this article 100% should be kept just for reasons in the article and it's fascinating sometimes to see whose living, whose dead and whose the oldest --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all respect, that argument makes absolutely no sense. It just sounds like you’re rambling. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, that's my opinion if you don't like it too bad lol. --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well my opinion may not matter, but if it fails to impress the closing admin then their opinion will certainly matter. Dronebogus (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This will likely close as no consensus but if we could get every trivial list deleted then it would be worth it. desmay (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Desmay if you think it’s trivial garbage why not just vote delete? Dronebogus (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am swayed by the arguments that this list will not expire and is well sourced, so I don't believe it fails notability. I also do not think it is trivial, which may be the real issue here. I don't think there is an objective, set way to say what is trivial and what is not. The closest you can get is discussions based on consensus like this one. Rhino131 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, this might be interesting, and there might be reliable sources for the age of X and Y leader; or for the trivia of which one is the oldest. However, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIR are both very good reasons to delete this: not only is this not information which goes in an encyclopedia (which is not a statistical database, but a summary of knowledge); but it is also exactly the opposite of a "summary of knowledge", since it doesn't summarise any knowledge, it just makes a trivial cross-categorisation based on two entirely unrelated characteristics ("state leaders" and "age" - the impact of either on the other is pretty much non-existent). In addition, many editors above note serious issues of WP:OR, either in the way this list was compiled or on the fact that some of the information is of dubious verifiability (i.e. it does not provide useful and accurate information to the reader). The arguments to keep, on the other hand, are entirely unpersuasive and consist mostly of personal opinion ("this is interesting") or special pleading/begging for mercy ("don't throw this out of the window"; "other longevity articles are being deleted, keep this one, please!!", ...) or pointing to the fact this was already discussed (yes, lots of things were already discussed. If nobody ever revisited those, we'd still be in the stone age, which seems an apt metaphor for the act of stonewalling). The reliable sources in the article are only useful to support that X person included in the list was living as of date Y, so they're not useful for supporting the notion that this is actually a notable topic (and even if it possibly was, the fact that this is such an obvious example of WP:NOT would still be a strong argument to get rid of this). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Renewal6: I disagree, and I've expanded on this in the collapsed section above. However, what is more important here is that you're clearly bludgeoning the process, and I'm going to strongly suggest that this has to stop. People have seen your arguments, re-stating them 50 different times is not going to make them any more convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each of your two comments are more extensive than my reply [View history]. Thus, I leave it to the intelligent reader to assess who's really bludgeoning the process. Renewal6 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being long-winded when answering a comment under one's own is not bludgeon. Challenging every single person who has argued in favour of deletion since one first participated in the AfD, on the other hand... But whatever, if you can drop the stick I don't particularly care enough about this to engage further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bludgeoning has been on both sides, exactly as vague or puerile arguments. I wouldn't reduce all the keep arguments to mere whining, some good points have been brought by various posters. Renewal actually answered some points you raised, I don't think that's hostile attitude. Re the "consensus change" thing I agree with him: no further arguments for deletion have been presented this time in respect to rthe previous discussion. This could set a bad precedent, as articles could be periodically nominated until the desired outcome is obtained. Slippery slope? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway I repeat the fact that The Guardian dedicated an article to this very team shows it is much more than a "trivial cross-categorization". Regards, --Folengo (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • By “team” I’m assuming you either meant “term” or “group” since I don’t think there’s a League of Geriatric Leaders out there. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Dronebogus: Meaningless reply that does not strengthen the arguments put forward in favour of delete. This discussion page already contains 22 comments from your side, far more than any other editor. Renewal6 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn’t trying to, I was just trying to correct someone’s vocabulary. Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: What about List of the oldest living people? No one questions its notability. List of living centenarians? Clearly notable. List of the oldest living state leaders? Notable as well. The first concerns the oldest living, period. The second is the oldest living, with Wikipedia articles and known independent of longevity. The third is the oldest living who have ruled a country during some point in their lifetimes. You say that notability is not temporary? Well, every time someone on here dies, a younger leader steps in to take his/her place. How about that for "not temporary?" 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OSE is not a particularly good argument, especially when your sole argument for this is a mere assertion that "its clearly notable"; which does not address the other concerns. "oldest living who have ruled a country during some point in their lifetimes" further shows how the two characteristics are indeed certainly not correlated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm… you do realize WP:OSE is on a page called “arguments to avoid during AfD”, right? Dronebogus (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments says these "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. In my argument, I presented two other notable articles about oldest living people. Therefore, Dronebogus it is valid. I presented two very similar articles that would almost certainly survive AfD if nominated, as I said above. This is simply a subgroup of List of the oldest living people. And let me say that I've nominated three longevity articles for deletion, and succeeded on two, so I know what's notable and what isn't. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it’s “just a subgroup of list oldest living people” then it’s a WP:FORK and should be deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beside that, Dronebogus, replying to every single comment against your opinion is the definition of bludgeoning the process.--Folengo (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have not replied to every single comment. Dronebogus (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it's not a fork, Dronebogus. It's a subarticle, and subarticles are not forks (see WP:SUBARTICLE). 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial, arbitrary cross-categorization that fails WP:NOT. The arguments that there are sources verifying the information isn't very convincing because they are pretty much all just sources confirming the individual ages of specific individuals on the list, and not that actually discuss the overall topic of "Oldest Living State Leaders", which means that this fails WP:LISTN. Nearly all of the "Keep" votes above are based on WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments, which are not policy based arguments. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I linked at least two articles from reputable newspapers that "discuss the overall topic of "Oldest Living State Leaders". Did you miss them?--Folengo (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Former Greek prime minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis is the fourth oldest living state leader, according to Wikipedia." ([2]) is not an acceptable source either for reliability (since it is clearly WP:CIRCULAR) or for notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Guardian piece is on several current world leaders who are in their 80's and 90's, not all current and former world leaders, which is what this list is about. Aside from mentioning two specific individuals who are no longer in office that are over 100, it does not discuss the actual topic of this list. It could be a source used for, say Lists of state leaders by age, but doesn't cover the actual breadth of what this specific list is supposed to be about. The problems with the second article were already explained by RandomCanadian above - its an article that very specifically states it was using Wikipedia as its source, making it a WP:CIRCULAR source. Rorshacma (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Guardian journalist actually asked himself "Who are the oldest living state leaders?" and found Do Muoi and Babiker Awadalla as an answer. That's two names, here there are 100, but the principle is exactly the same. Re The Greek Reporter, the article may be circular but it shows interest from an important journal in this very article.--Folengo (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of those claims actually have anything to do with the article failing WP:LISTN. An article mentioning two specific names out of the 100 that this article is about is not a discussion of the "grouping or set in general", and it doesn't matter why the Greek Reporter used Wikipedia as a source - it being a WP:CIRCULAR source means it is completely invalid as a reliable source per WP:V. Rorshacma (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, so an article entitled "World leaders in their 80s and 90s – from Akihito to Malaysia's new PM" is NOT aboyt "World leaders in their 80s and 90s". I say it is completely on this matter and that's pretty much dried and cut. Only things you could reply to this is "Point taken". Any other argument seems utterly out of place.--Folengo (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful list that won't expire.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many articles can be construed as useful. Why not include unlimited information, lists and categories because they're useful?^[sarcasm] This is an encyclopedia, not a website to include "useful" information. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, so you're saying we should only have articles that aren't useful or contain no information?^[sarcasm] Shouldn't an encyclopedic article have both? Sometimes it seems like people are justifying deletion because people say the information is useful, interesting, and frequently consulted. Bkatcher (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm saying that the sole reason to keep an article, because it's a "useful list" in this case, is wholly inadequate. I think you assumed too much with your bullet. But nonetheless, most of the keeps are based on what you called out: utility, interesting, etc, not the deletes. The keeps have totally ignored WP:UTIL and WP:INTERESTING, and the user who we've both replied to here should really check out WP:USEFUL. --13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
        • "The keeps have totally[sic!] ignored WP:UTIL and WP:INTERESTING". Blatant exaggeration. Many delete voters should check out WP:USELESS ("Trivia.") and WP:RUBBISH ("if you think it’s trivial garbage why not just vote delete?"). Nota bene: It's not bludgeoning to reply to a comment that clearly addressed all keep voters. Renewal6 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You simply copy-pasted your comment from WP:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living United States senators. Thus, you're basically ignoring all the arguments put forward at this discussion by lumping together all lists of living people. Renewal6 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I did because it is a strong consistent policy based rationale that is convincing when it comes to approaching list articles about living people in relation to WP:NLIST. I did not ignore the comments made here, I just don’t find them convincing in relation to policy. Being consistent is a good thing.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consistency based on false assumptions may be better than inconsistency, but it's still a bad thing. Renewal6 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven’t made any false assumptions. Might I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE. Your attitude towards me and other editors who have different opinions than you at this discussion is overly hostile, and could potentially intimidate editors with other views from commenting here. In other words, calm it down and stop badgering every person who has an opposing opinion or an admin may be needed to step in order to protect the integrity of this AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I protected the integrity of this AfD discussion by pointing out to the reader that you had inserted an unlabelled copy and paste comment. Considering your assumptions (every list of living people should be deleted because of recent overwhelming consensus at some discussions; consistency is a good thing independent of the circumstances) to be false, is obviously neither hostile attitude nor a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLE. In which way should my arguments be more "intimidating" than your appeal to an apparent overwhelming consensus? Renewal6 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would consider your response just now continuing in the vein of incivility and battleground behavior. I shouldn’t have to acknowledge a copy paste when it’s my own words from another discussion that I am reusing. Making a commonly made argument in identical language across nominations is a common place thing to do at AFD. Making an issue out of it is frankly a bad faith move on your part. Regardless, I’ve participated or observed about a dozen of these living people list AFDs recently, all resulting in deletion with the rationale I gave above so I disagree that I am making a false assertion on recent precedent.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you think it's battleground behaviour to defend myself against your strong accusations, I'm genuinely convinced that the reader won't benefit from a further discussion between us two on this topic. Hence, I suggest we both agree to disagree and stop it at this point. Renewal6 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I'm already horrified to see that we have lost the List of longest-living state leaders. I don't know why Dronebogus has it in for those who love longevity-based lists (I was among the substantial fraction of supporters of the oldest-House-member list recently) but the more of them Wikipedia has the better off it is! 96.250.80.27 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s nothing personal, I just happen to see lists that aren’t in line with policy and nominate them for deletion because Wikipedia has to maintain some kind of standards lest it devolve into an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information or otherwise something other than an encyclopedia. You’re welcome to start your own gerontology wiki on a site like Fandom if you never want the possibility of this happening. Dronebogus (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As Andrew and others noted above, the reasons proposed for deletion are not policy and indicate neglect of WP:BEFORE. The page should be kept because WP:5P, WP:LISTN, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:CAT, among others. Thus, on principal, that means it does not pass WP:DP and should never have been directly sent to AfD. Instead, the correct procedure (re: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) would be to either fix the problem yourself (WP:BEBOLD) or simply tag the areas that need improvement so that other editors can help fix them.

As an aside, the same deletionists used this exact page's existence t argue for the deltion of the list of longest-serving non-royal leaders-- talk about circular! So when they come down to the last list on WP, they will axe it simply because there are no other lists on WP. This aggression is reminiscent of the portal controversy last year, where suddenly any portal could be guillotined simply because WP:IDONTLIKE. Next time, please do due diligence and WP:BEFORE first. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and to rebut a few specific points:

They say it fails WP:LISTN just because there is no outside source where the entire list can be found. In fact, if such an outside article existed, this list would violate WP:PLAGFORM. So you're presenting a catch-22 by saying the information cannot be found in a single source elsewhere. Moreover, not only is the information verifiable through each link, there are several outside sources that are indeed referenced.

They say it's WP:OR and WP:SYN -- the article does not reach any conclusions, so by definition cannot be WP:SYN or WP:OR

WP:NOT -- since when are lists outlawed in an encyclopedia? In fact, we should be encouraging people to present data in more digestible ways than mere text these days. If people are willing to maintain a list like this, it absolutely is WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. I mean, if a list of world leaders fails WP:NOTE then what hope for any other article on WP? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • The paradoxical thing is that, in respect to the last AfD, no further argument for deletion was brought, whereas there are new arguments for keeping the page, mainly an article from the Guardian (I repeat, The Guardian!) on this very matter. So quite nonsensical discussion going on right here, with the pro-deletion side making everything to make the other side look bad and naive, due to a lot of inexperienced replies mainly by unregistered users. But solid arguments in favour of keeping were brought forward.--Folengo (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's the BBC article I was speaking about, reported by Khaosod as I can't find the original page. Another article on oldest living state leaders, which focuses on late Burmese PM Tun Tin. Yet another proof of interest in this "futile, trivial" topic.--Folengo (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Look, you can cite highly respected news sources over and over, and you, Tiredmeliorist et al can repeatedly make Ad Hominem attacks accusing delete voters of being biters/haters, but the point is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of meaningless temporary trivia and statistics and that will situationally trump the golden rules of verifiability and coverage by reliable sources. You could find a Guardian article about “what are the top Indian restaurants in Britain in 2021?” but that wouldn’t justify an article called “list of current most popular restaurants specialized in Indian cuisine in the UK”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attacking" the arguments of the deletionists at this page is not an ad-hominem-attack. The assertion "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of meaningless temporary trivia and statistics" is worthless, as you did not provide an argument why this article should be "a collection of meaningless temporary trivia and statistics". If you think state leaders and the top Indian restaurants in Britain in 2021 are equally notable, it's obviously you that doesn't seem to understand what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Renewal6 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s ad hominem because you’re repeatedly citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT when most delete voters are trying to provide actual arguments, therefore assuming bad faith. I don’t think they’re equally notable. The problem is that the age of a leader, especially a former leader, is trivia since it has nothing to do with their leadership. Per Clarityfiend on the “longest living state leaders” AfD: “Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum is the record holder. He was the prime minister of Cambodia for two lousy months, then lived for another 46 years. What does the one have to do with the other?”. The fact that they’re currently living is what makes it temporary, since their longevity is generally only notable when put in that context and typically will not be notable once they die— guessing about whether or not it might end up being so is WP:CRYSTAL. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folengo also made the accusation that “[…]the pro-deletion side [is] making everything to make the other side look bad and naive”, an ad hominem attack that is also implying an assumption of bad faith. Dronebogus (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagreeing on the basis of arguments within the limits of this discussion topic has nothing to do with assuming bad faith. The delete side repeatedly cited WP:INTERESTING and lumped together all keep voters, that's not a personal attack either. Secondly, your argument that the longevity of, e.g., Queen Elizabeth will be a non-notable topic after her death is entirely unconvincing. Renewal6 (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I did say “generally”. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you guys both need to learn what an ad hominem attack actually is. No one has engaged in ad hominem attacks here, so please stop using that term or trying to debase another editor by invoking that term. Both of you should stop this. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You’re right. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Various points to reply at.
• )There are no personal attacks here. It is just a way to make the other side look bad as I said before. You, Dronebogus, actually were warned for this. This time it is not even debatable there are no personal attacks. We all agree on this. Plus, it is paradoxical you say the "keep" side made personal attacks because they said the "delete" side insisted on WP:IDONTLIKEIT policies when actually the same "delete" side spent half discussion dispelling the keep comments as WP:ILIKEIT. Not consistent at all, but I guess you have retracted it now.
• )Regarding the sources I brought forward, first you (as the delete side in general, this is not a personal attack) first complain there are no reputable sources on this topic, so it is baseless Gerontology trivia, then when those sources are brought forward, you go "I don't care about those sources! They could write anything they like!". Not consistent at all! And also thinking Guardian or BBC could deliberately dedicate pages to futile topics would accuse them to be non reliable sources or collections of trivia. Which obviously is not the case.
• )Tiredmeliorist comment was based on policies, long and articulated. What you did reply to him was he was making "personal attacks" which really leaves me perplexed and once again seems a cheap reply. That comment has not been addressed, like many others on the keep side here. Just pointin this out. The whole "personal attack" thing this time was a big own goal, but I think you already realized and regretted it.--Folengo (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get your legitimate points, but would prefer you didn’t bludgeon me with the process for things I’ve already retracted. Dronebogus (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That diff link also doesn’t exactly make you look good, considering you were being blatantly uncivil and I’ve already explained to the warning editor that I just overreacted, which you can see at the bottom of User talk:Jclemens/Archive 14. Dronebogus (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! Well sourced and useful. Nwhyte (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:USEFUL and maybe explain why it’s even useful. Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The problem with this deletion nomination is that it is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the rationales for deletion have failed to provide any evidence nor a strong argument on how this list is actually unencyclopedic or violates policies/guidelines. Using this same deletion rationale, every other list article of this same nature, like List of presidents of the United States by age (and every equivalent article for other world leaders), should also be deleted. And the whole invoking WP:NOTTRIVIA is also extremely petulant considering the massive amount of sourcing (108 references) that is being used as the basis for this article. This is not just one of those list articles that someone just one day created because it floated their boat, this list is backed by tons of verifiable sources and is not just hundreds of paragraphs of one's own original research. If one is going to nominate an article for deletion because it actually goes against what Wikipedia is about or violates policies/guidelines to where deletion is the only option (issues that can not be fixed by editing, by all means, nominate for deletion, but just because one does not like something or just because something does not float ones boat, does not mean nominate it for deletion and abuse the deletion process.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF isn’t a good argument when half of those “list of leaders by age” lists actually have been cut (though now I assume you’re probably going to contest every single one at deletion review). Dronebogus (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dronebogus: Just trying to change people's minds with your comments is borderline WP:AADD 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking the same thing Dronebogus. You've said your piece; let others say theirs. You don't always have to have the last word. Bkatcher (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well sourced, and in my opinion the notability of the topic is testified by its coverage in several WP:RS per Felango and others. Vanteloop (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Folengo and Vanteloop. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehm... it's Folengo.--Folengo (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooops, fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I like this article very much, it may be trivial, but for someone who is interested in (world) politics, this is a great page. Picsovina (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2021 (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.