Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of governors of Texas by age

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 delete. Sandstein 06:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors of Texas by age

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which is also statistical trivia. Unsourced WP:OR.

The first section of the list ranks former governors who are living by their age. There's no evidence that this ranking is notable, and it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired. It's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of office holders and longevity.

The second section of the list is a very confusing table of historical holders of the title "Governor of X", and is loaded with trivia, such as their age at start of office, age when they left, length of retirement, and final age, all in years and days. There are also separate ranks for by assumption of office and by final age.

The third section of the list is a confusing table of historical holders of the record for "oldest living governor of X," a title that appears to have been invented by a Wikipedia editor. The start and end dates list the time period during which the person was the record holder, their age at both, and the duration. This topic appears to be a completely original invention, and is certainly non-notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it would be appropriate to list the superlatives at List of governors of Texas and List of governors of California, but these just duplicate the names while adding statistical trivia about their ages. The media has commented on very old and young officeholders, but it's not encyclopedic in this way. Reywas92^Talk 23:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I am also nominating the following related page because both articles are nearly identical:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the same reasons as all the other recently deleted lists of political office holders by age. pburka (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to block that creator, who is one of many socks. Very irritating. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: Is this the same person who built List of longest-living state leaders? There are many of these irrelevant lists now, and a list is needed to keep track of them. I would be happy to see the block. This is getting out of hand. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ode+Joy, no, that editor appears to be unrelated, sorry. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then somehow a few people seem to have some type of OCD about this subject. I wonder why. Thanks.Ode+Joy (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as Pburka suggested. And somehow put a stop to the reincarnation of these lists. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G5- so tagged. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While this note may apply to List of governors of Texas by age, it certainly does not apply to List of governors of California by age because I am a user in good standing of over 16 years. OCNative (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I only tagged that one. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news media repeatedly covers this information (at least for the California gubernatorial ages). There was repeated coverage of Jerry Brown being the oldest governor in 2011 after being one of the youngest governors in 1975, the generational shift from when Brown was succeeded by Gavin Newsom in 2019, etc. I don't see how this is WP:OR because it falls under WP:CALC and the dates are easily verifiable. Further, the nom's link to statistical trivia neglects to note that the link includes "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" so while these could use more sourcing, the articles clearly provide context with explanations. Also, numerous reasons for keep are listed at this AfD from last month on the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age. In the interest of full disclosure, I created List of governors of California by age eleven years ago in 2010. OCNative (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT overrides WP:N; and the only context this provides is also WP:OR (being entirely unsourced and not previously published on any website but Wikipedia; hence clearly meeting that whether it is CALC or not), so that doesn't help, especially if one takes into account that one can't readily find any source with which to actually write such a context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment Someone with several thousand followers and who wants this article kept has just posted on twitter about this AfD, just a head's up if there's an influx of participants. Schazjmd (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: This one (doesn't look like that one has an account here, so linking it should be OK)? In which case I wouldn't be too concerned, although yeah of course keep an eye open so anything particularly obvious can be dealt with. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a “no canvassing” template up, just in case. Dronebogus (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as contentfork failing WP:LISTN. Listcruft as usual. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons given by OCNative above. 60.242.192.54 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2021 — 60.242.192.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Wikipedia isn’t a collection of meaningless gerontology trivia no matter what some people think. Dronebogus (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly for the reasons laid out by OCNative. I also think this is a rather poor nomination, for example obviously List of presidents of the United States by age was not bundled here even though the topic is similar. I think it's reasonable that the Texas list could be non-notable while the California list is notable, I don't think there's a clear line for whether "list of $office by age" are notable or not so they should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. (note: was notified by OCNative to this discussion neutrally on my talkpage, I'm assuming this is because of my participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For full disclosure, I left the Template:Afd notices on the users who participated at two recent discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age (which resulted in keep) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity (which resulted in delete). Obviously, I didn't take the redundant approach of notifying users who had already participated on this page. OCNative (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent articles if they lack age data, otherwise Delete. This really doesn't need to be it's own article. BSMRD (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD List of governors of California has no age data, but is of Featured List quality without such info, while List of governors of Texas has life dates for each governor already. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- First of all my G5 argument was declined on the grounds that, although the sock has been blocked, the sockmaster for some reason hasn't been. This strikes me as bizarre and a bit pedantic, and as far as I'm concerned G5 still stands. But besides that, RandomCanadian is completely correct in saying the principles that apply here are "what wikipedia is not" and "no original research". This is a cross-categorization "List of X by unrelated property Y". It's not much different to having, say, List of fattest popes which everyone would agree is ridiculous. But I guess if the HAES crowd held as much sway here as the gerontology enthusiasts do maybe we'd be having exactly that conversation. Meh. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, looking at it now, the sockmaster and his entire sock drawer has been blocked, making the G5 decline even more perplexing. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk The G5 decline was valid, but based on a mistake. Bartolo 5565 was meant to be blocked when Drmies blocked the whole large sock network on Oct 6, but he forgot to block the Bartolo account. So @Explicit declined the G5 at 00:29 Oct 9 because Bartolo wasn't blocked, and Drmies rectified his oversite by blocking Bartolo at 2:12 Oct 9. Hope that helps. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a database query. Per nom, it is cross-categorization and trivia. If any of this were truly important, it could be merged to List of governors of Texas (and similarly for CA); the living former governors are already on that page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Without sources showing that the topic of ages of governors in comparison to one another is discussed to the extent such as that given in the prose of these articles (e.g., not just citations to things like "X is the oldest governor of state Y to take office"), this is a content fork, original research, and, to quote 力, "a database query." I don't see anything needing to be merged to the parent lists of governors. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:12, 18 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.