330:. While poorly cited (although virtually all information is gathered from two listed sources) and while I haven't been involved with the page for several years, going back through seven years ago, the page has been premised on verifiability. While it is indeed unlikely the Monsieur Huysmans is precisely the 69th longest lived state leader, he is indeed the 69th (+/- a few, at most) longest-lived leader listed on worldstatesmen or rulers (the two preeminent sites in lists of leaders) "whose age can be proven beyond reasonable doubt" via sources on his (and other leaders') pages. More or less, this means that this is as complete a list as can be compiled, and covers ~90%+ of leaders (the remainder being unverifiable Asian/African leaders) over the past two centuries, before which it was exceedingly uncommon for individuals to surpass the minimum age of entry (95+ years). As per WP:N, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Knowledge:What Knowledge is not,"
334:, e.g., "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y," neither of which are anything close to this list. WP:N states that "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability," the first of
208:
Belgium Prime
Minister (1946–1947) Lived from 1871-1968 totalling 96 years, 273 days making this person the 69th longest lived state leader? How can we prove that given there have been many state leaders in history? This is most certainly very inaccurate because it is very incomplete and there are
672:
That study is interesting- not exactly about this topic but it concluded getting elected to head of state shortens your life. This still seems like a cross catagorization and OR as editors pull together birth and death dates of some quite obscure world leaders and debate if person x lead a country
338:
a "list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Do what you like, but WP's rules seem to leave room for this page, and the nominator's comment is
555:
This is just a list of the oldest people who happened to have been state leaders. At least list of state leaders by length of reign would make some sense to connect the two. You could create lists of the oldest people by every single profession if you wanted to. Does it really matter that
496:
617:
That is a patently misleading statement, given that the page only links to nine lists, including this and a similar one. There should be many more, and the fact that they do not exist is not an argument to narrow the already minimal scope of these lists.
483:. Countries visited would immediately be deleted as simply impossible, and by height would be woefully incomplete and filled with exaggerations (from 'reliable' sources), two points on which the nominated article stands strong. Yes, it was right to
492:
657:
Thank you. This is the best keep argument I've seen based on policy. I still think notability is tenuous, and verifiability impossible in its current form, but this is interesting evidence that the cross-categorization isn't completely arbitrary.
695:
For the reasons cited above, the only reason to delete is "not useful". It is encyclopedic, and this page is littered with examples of WP:ATA USEFUL. There is no reason to delete, so despite some slightly shaky arguments I would go with keep.
169:
637:. While I can understand the rationale behind nomination, a Google search does seem to indicate that this is a topic that generates enough interest to support an article on Knowledge; for example
465:
because that relates directly to their time in power. As this list is defined a person could be in power for 3 day, be ousted in a coup, then live to the unremarkable age 97 and be on the list.
163:
484:
461:
or would be better topics because these criteria are more connected to their world leader status then how long they managed to live, often after they left office. Even more useful would be
95:
90:
99:
256:
597:
data on world leaders is extensively tracked in some good relivent ways like longest time in office, youngest in office, oldest in office and other ways directly tied to service
82:
480:
122:
488:
226:
129:
184:
151:
307:. And it's impossible to verify that these are, in fact, the longest-living state leaders without exhaustively examining all of the leaders who
204:
list of state leaders of modern time by age? Do we need to know that according to the
Knowledge editors (for there are no RS for this) that
376:. If it can be demonstrated that other sources have assembled lists of the longest-living state leaders, then the article should be kept.
374:"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"
705:
682:
667:
652:
627:
609:
590:
569:
547:
530:
508:
474:
449:
425:
411:
391:
352:
320:
298:
278:
248:
218:
64:
145:
303:
More specifically, this is an arbitrary intersection of topics. Longevity and political positions are unrelated topics. It's also
141:
458:
335:
331:
86:
17:
191:
78:
70:
701:
462:
157:
723:
40:
445:
384:
379:
647:
491:
as that's unknowable. But keeping this page is far more similar to keeping the oldest living MLB players (
441:
719:
697:
623:
586:
557:
504:
348:
36:
487:, as it was based on unreliable sources and woefully incomplete information, and yes, it was right to
565:
420:
678:
605:
470:
304:
270:
240:
214:
177:
642:
560:
who served in office for two months is at the top of this list just because of his longevity? --
543:
526:
578:
340:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
718:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
663:
619:
582:
500:
433:
344:
316:
294:
205:
561:
437:
369:
674:
601:
466:
365:
260:
230:
210:
55:
399:
A clearly defining list with inclusion criteria of notable individuals easily meeting
575:
539:
522:
400:
405:
361:
201:
116:
659:
312:
290:
538:
Encyclopedic list that is a perfect example of an appropriate standalone list.
499:), the largest reasons for which is verifiability and notability of listees.
638:
598:
368:, which is not counted as synthesis. Our notability guideline for lists is
364:– all the information in it is verifiable, and assembling a list is a
581:. And there are already three lists dealing with the stated topic.
712:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
209:
no sources that suggest this type of list outside
Knowledge.
112:
108:
104:
479:
For a whole host of arguments against this point, see
176:
481:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins
257:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
726:). No further edits should be made to this page.
227:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
641:was picked up by numerous news organizations.
200:What possible reason is there to assemble an
190:
8:
255:Note: This debate has been included in the
225:Note: This debate has been included in the
459:List of world leaders by countries visited
254:
224:
485:delete the List of oldest NHL players
7:
600:with this topic being the outlier.
79:List of longest-living state leaders
71:List of longest-living state leaders
24:
574:Again, there is nothing here but
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
489:delete the List of oldest CEOs
419:Passes LISTN. Clearly not OR.
1:
463:Longest serving world leaders
299:02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
289:. Not an encyclopedic topic.
279:21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
249:21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
219:21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
706:11:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
683:00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
668:20:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
653:20:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
628:06:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
610:06:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
591:07:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
570:05:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
548:05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
531:05:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
509:08:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
475:04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
450:00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
426:23:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
412:10:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
392:07:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
353:06:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
336:which is broadly defined as
321:02:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
65:12:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
743:
715:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
673:or not. Very strange.
558:Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum
366:routine calculation
339:essentially WP:ATA
390:
360:. The list isn't
281:
274:
251:
244:
63:
734:
717:
698:RailwayScientist
650:
645:
423:
408:
387:
382:
377:
372:, which states:
276:
273:
267:
264:
246:
243:
237:
234:
206:Camille Huysmans
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
742:
741:
737:
736:
735:
733:
732:
731:
730:
724:deletion review
713:
648:
643:
422:DerbyCountyinNZ
421:
406:
385:
380:
332:which refers to
311:make the list.
271:
265:
262:
241:
235:
232:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
740:
738:
729:
728:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
632:
631:
630:
595:
594:
593:
550:
533:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
453:
452:
442:Dangermouse600
428:
414:
394:
381:IgnorantArmies
355:
325:
324:
323:
283:
282:
252:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
739:
727:
725:
721:
716:
710:
709:
708:
707:
703:
699:
694:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
656:
655:
654:
651:
646:
640:
636:
633:
629:
625:
621:
616:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
559:
554:
551:
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
532:
528:
524:
521:
518:
517:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
429:
427:
424:
418:
415:
413:
410:
409:
402:
398:
395:
393:
389:
388:
383:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
337:
333:
329:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
284:
280:
277:
275:
269:
268:
258:
253:
250:
247:
245:
239:
238:
228:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
714:
711:
692:
691:
634:
614:
552:
535:
519:
430:
416:
404:
396:
378:
373:
357:
327:
308:
305:WP:SYNTHESIS
286:
272:
261:
242:
231:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
620:Star Garnet
583:Star Garnet
501:Star Garnet
345:Star Garnet
164:free images
639:this study
562:Ricky81682
58:Sandstein
720:talk page
675:Legacypac
602:Legacypac
467:Legacypac
434:WP:USEFUL
211:Legacypac
37:talk page
722:or in a
644:Canadian
540:Alansohn
523:Czolgolz
438:WP:LISTN
370:WP:LISTN
123:View log
39:or in a
615:Comment
579:USELESS
407:Lugnuts
358:Comment
341:USELESS
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
660:Pburka
576:WP:ATA
553:Delete
401:WP:SAL
386:(talk)
313:Pburka
309:didn't
291:Pburka
287:Delete
142:Google
100:delete
362:WP:OR
263:Human
233:Human
202:WP:OR
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
702:talk
693:Keep
679:talk
664:talk
649:Paul
635:Keep
624:talk
606:talk
587:talk
566:talk
544:talk
536:Keep
527:talk
520:Keep
505:talk
471:talk
446:talk
431:Keep
417:Keep
397:Keep
349:talk
328:Keep
317:talk
295:talk
266:3015
236:3015
215:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
50:keep
497:2nd
493:1st
192:TWL
121:– (
52:.
704:)
681:)
666:)
626:)
608:)
589:)
568:)
546:)
529:)
507:)
495:,
473:)
448:)
440:--
436:,
403:.
351:)
343:.
319:)
297:)
259:.
229:.
217:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
700:(
677:(
662:(
622:(
604:(
585:(
564:(
542:(
525:(
503:(
469:(
444:(
347:(
315:(
293:(
213:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.