Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives

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. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives

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

WP:GNG, fails Significant Coverage test (sources address the subject directly in detail). KarlFrei (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept, it should be moved to List of oldest surviving members of the United States House of Representatives -- Eastmain (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bust change it to currently serving terms only. US reps are inherently notable while in office, but not after they leave. Googlemeister (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really agree that there should be a list, but that's not how "inherently notable" works. Once notable, always notable. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a random intersection of information. Why would anyone want to know who is the oldest living former congressperson? Better for it to have its own site. WP should be for information of lasting importance. Borock (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per KarlFrei, we need sources which address this topic specifically to confer notability; Representatives may be 'inherently notable' but their ages are not. I can't find any such sources with a brief search. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment Please speak solely for yourself. Star Garnet (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

It seems that the only statement of Olaf that you could object to would be "their ages are not". If they are, please give us the sources which address this topic directly in detail.KarlFrei (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course when I say "their ages are not" I mean "I think their ages are not"; I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else. If you disagree I'm happy to discuss it, Star Garnet. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My extreme apologies. I had intended to post the comment on the post above. Star Garnet (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology Star Garnet (though I was more bemused than anything else). Olaf Davis (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fits WP:SALAT, WP:CARES does not apply. Info does come solely from the Congressional Directory. Star Garnet (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SALAT, I would argue that this topic is indeed not related to human knowledge. The Congressional Directory does not specifically discuss oldest living members, I presume; it's just something you can derive from it (original research?). KarlFrei (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, it should be renamed, since there are many houses of representatives in the US. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. Yes, this is a list rather than a category, but the same reasoning applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are a lot of pages like this in this subject (President, Senate, Governors) I personally don't see why any of them are more worth keeping than this one. Get rid of all of them or none of them, in my opinion Nevermore | Talk 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm surprised there's even a discussion about this. We have lists of living supercentenarians, but none of them are inherently notable for any accomplishment in their lives. We have lists of surviving veterans of wars, but it's not like any of them are notable for anything they did on the battlefield. What you have to understand is, this page, like many other pages, is the only place someone might find this information. And just because you think that the information might not be "notable" doesn't mean that someone else doesn't find it interesting or worthy of researching, and who are we to deny that to the world? In the interest of scholarship and the pure search for information, I urge you all to reconsider. Valadius (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is the very intersection of information that makes an online encyclopedia so much more useful than a printed one. Otherwise, why would we even have wikilinks? We have articles regarding human longevity because it's notable, and of course each individual is inherently notable. If there is a paucity of sources, we should address that issue by fixing the article, not deleting it. I would also bring to people's attention the similarly nominated List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members. I have no objection to an appropriate rename of both lists. Frank | talk 12:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to those of you arguing for (strong) keep, I would appreciate if you would at least address my primary objection, namely, that Wikipedia policy requires sources which address this subject directly in detail. (Additionally, people who care about this subject matter a lot may create their own website.) KarlFrei (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy requires that level of coverage? Please don't answer WP:N; it merely states that as a way to presume notability - it's certainly not the only way to establish it. There are plenty of adjuncts to WP:N for subjects which aren't ever going to be covered in detail. Sometimes we have to infer just a little; it was clearly notable when Strom Thurmond turned 100 years old, for example. We don't have an article specifically about that, but if we had this article at that time, surely his turning 100 would have been usable to support the existence of such an article. And for many years he was the oldest member of the Senate, which was also reported. Robert Byrd is certainly mentioned as the oldest (and longest-serving) member of the Senate. Frank Lautenberg is also noted for his age. If these people remain notable when they are no longer serving in Congress, they remain notable for their age; that even becomes more notable the longer they live. Frank | talk 13:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I was referring to WP:GNG. Reading the section WP:FAILN, it appears to me that such sources are really a requirement; if they are not mentioned yet in an article, it is no reason to delete it immediately, but they do have to exist...KarlFrei (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sources are a requirement; that's a given. However, I still disagree with the interpretation of WP:GNG, which lists an easy situation in which a subject is more or less automatically considered notable. That doesn't mean that if that situation doesn't exist that the subject is automatically not notable. See, for example, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSIC, WP:PORNSTAR, WP:ATHLETE, and similar extended guidelines. There are countless articles about people of marginal (and, indeed, practically non-existent) notability who nevertheless have articles in the project; think of baseball players who played only a few games, for example. They don't meet WP:GNG, but they are notable by meeting other criteria. I suspect a case can (or will) be made that this list is WP:OR, but DOBs are sourced in the individual articles, so I don't see how that would apply. Frank | talk 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:ACADEMIC et al. list ways to meet notability outside the GNG. But a subject which doesn't meet the GNG and doesn't fall under any of those special cases is non-notable by default. Can anyone think of a 'smaller' notability guideline which would cover this topic? If not then the existence of such guidelines is irrelevant. As for citing DOBs - I'm confident that will be easy to do if the article is determined notable, but that must be a first step. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It might be helpful for researchers looking for specific information, but I think this article is marginally useful at best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I find most frustrating about this is that if every list (which IMHO make up a majority of useful material on Wikipedia), we wouldn't be left with much. There are many lists, such as lists of countries, which require the creator of the list to visit many subsites to gather all necessary information. The same goes for this article. Star Garnet (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having to visit many sources to get the information is fine, as long as the topic itself has been proven notable. It doesn't matter if the laws in List of alcohol laws of the United States by state are taken from 50 separate sources which each mention only one state, because everyone agrees that the subject 'how alcohol laws vary across US states' is notable. What's disputed for this article is whether the subject 'ages of HoR members' is notable at all; once we establish that it is, the actual entries of the list can be made up from synthesising as many sources as necessary. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the Lists of people by age category contains 66 pages, most of which fall into the same category as this one. I recognize this looks like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but...I am confident that knowing there is a category listing quite a number of useful, sourced lists will serve to indicate the general community feeling about them rather than a "that-list-exists-so-this-one-should-remain" argument. Frank | talk 15:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point Frank. This actually feels like the kind of thing which might come up at AfD perennially - does anyone recall similar discussions we could have a look at to get an idea of broader consensus? Certainly we should be consistent and deleting a single element of the category without addressing its similarities to the others would be silly. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I linked to List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members in my first comment above. That discussion has since been closed (no consensus), although it might have been a little premature given that there was some real discussion. Nevertheless, the question of notability came up for that article; I provided quite a number of specific links. Whether anyone considers them useful here is questionable, but anyone is free to take a look. Frank | talk 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you did; sorry. A shame it was no consensus. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been defending Lists of people by age since i started contributing on wikipedia (i.g. orginal lists of nobel winners by age I did several years ago). How are they no more relevant then the articles I see on silly Video games . I think my article does serve a purpose, peoples curiosity in facts whether its a vital or just Trivial is why i believe this article should be kept. --Tommieboi (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A similar list exists at Longest living United States Senator, and Wikipedia has many more age lists like this that contain useful trivia about people ranked by age (See: Category:Lists of people by age). Bcperson89 (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of living people who have served in the US House. If the list were just that, listed alphabetically, included date of birth, and was a sortable table, then would there be a problem? Concentrating on the age factor is missing the forest for the trees. A list of former representatives is, I think, unquestionably notable; the arrangement is immaterial. It seems a significant proportion of the people discussing this list find the particular arrangement interesting, so there is good reason to think it should exist. If, in the end, the complaint is that this list should be at "List of living former members of the United States House of Representatives", and include a column for date of birth, then there should be a move discussion, not a delete discussion. -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but this list differs from your proposed rename not only in organisation but in content: this is just the hundred oldest members. I'm not sure how many living (ex-) members there are in total, but given that this list contains 100 over 85 it seems likely to be a lot - perhaps too many for a list to be wieldy. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly useful - Vartanza (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found this list, and other lists like it, to be useful in various research capacities, and I find it very helpful to have it listed here as such - Esprix (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for those wishing sources that show notability of being the oldest member of the House, please see this, this, and this. The last contains an article from 1957; the quote is: "OLDEST MAN IN US SENATE. Sen. Theodore Francis Green at the age of 89 years, 7 months and 26 days, sets a new record as the oldest man to serve in Congress." (Green served another 4 years and lived to age 98.) Not only is the topic notable, but it's been notable for decades. It's covered in reliable sources all the time. Frank | talk 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources give pretty minor coverage though, along the lines of "Smith, who was the oldest Representative, died this week..." The one you cite, here, is a 45-word article in total (as well as being about the Senate as you say) so I'm not sure how 'significant' that coverage is. There's also this, again about the Senate, but it's not clear from the abstract whether it covers it in depth at all. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When something is noted - even in a 45-word article - numerous times over a period of decades, that is significant in itself. Let's avoid the notion that "significant coverage" is a requirement. WP:N states that such provides the presumption of notability. That's not the same as saying it's the only way to achieve it. Frank | talk 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing for a criterion of notability distinct from 'significant coverage' is perfectly reasonable, as long as that criterion is supported by policy/guidelines. I don't believe that "noted numerous times over a period of decades" is supported as a criterion; it's not mentioned in the notability guidelines, unless I'm mistaken.

I also don't believe it should be a criterion. I'm sure we could find plenty of articles saying "Senator Smith, a keen golfer..." but that doesn't (or shouldn't) make the topic of Senators' favourite sports notable either. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'll defer to the Keep arguments already well articulated. Pvmoutside (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (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.