-
List of Philippine Presidents by longevity (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore|
cache|
AfD)
There was no consensus for deletion. The closing administrator concluded that there was a consensus for deletion because he or she erroneously ignored all arguments that were based on precedent, on the idea that Wikipedia should be internally consistent, or on the idea that Wikipedia should avoid bias. Those are legitimate arguments in a deletion debate and should not have been ignored. As background, six nearly identical articles have undergone deletion nominations, and each of them was kept. The only difference any editor has mentioned between those articles and this one is that this article concerns the Philippenes rather than a European or English-speaking country.
Fagles
19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I listed some reasons why I think the article was improperly closed on the
deleting admin's talk page. -
Fagles
19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I've notified everyone who commented on the
AfD about this deletion review.-
Fagles
20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn per Fagles and per
WP:PAPER and
WP:BIAS.
Carlossuarez46
20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You're citing a policy can apply to absolutely every page that is created and a WikiProject? Why would that overturn a deletion?
John Reaves
(talk)
20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I anticipated seeing this one appear on DRV, and to be honest I'm a bit torn. The merits of the keep !votes were fairly weak - my own among them. I was relying largely upon precedent in other similar articles that had survived deletion and assumed that consensus was to keep these sorts of things. However, as it was ultimately deleted,
List of United States Presidents by longevity is now up for deletion. Ultimately the fact that other such articles exists is not in and of itself a reason to hang on to an article, but in both this debate and that one a consensus is lacking and there are no strong arguments on either side. Overturn due to a lack of consensus.
Arkyan •
(talk)
20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn, no concensus.
Ab
e
g92
contribs
21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- So "unencyclopedic" isn't good reason to delete something from an encyclopedia?
John Reaves
(talk)
00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Hi John, feel free to read
WP:UNENCYC which elegantly and accurately, argues that "Delete. Unencyclopedic." is not a real argument and explains why it should be avoided. I also suggest looking at
WP:FIVE which is sorta the five core principles of Wikipedia. It clearly and unambiguously states, in the first sentence no less, that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added as this is a good example of information that would be in an almanac). --
JayHenry
00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That's just an essay, I was talking in terms of common sense (which I sincerely hope I don't need to cite something for). Yes, the anonymous user below has already pointed out the five pillars already.
John Reaves
(talk)
02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, geez, John, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the closing admin and would be familiar with those two references to begin with. I didn't mean for that to sound patronizing. The bottom line is that I saw the AFD for Philippine presidents and thought it was a no-consensus, with both sides making some really weak arguments. I think this is good information for an almanac which is Wikipedic if not "encyclopedic". In fact, I have a Time Almanac which includes exactly this information about longevity (for US). --
JayHenry
03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Fair enough.
John Reaves
(talk)
03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn as there was no consensus and per JayHenry
Aquatics
Guard Alert
22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn I see eleven people suggesting variations-on-the-theme that to delete would be systemic bias since we list US presidents in this way: a pefectly valid policy based argument, and I can see no reason to discount it. There was clearly no consensus to delete.
AndyJones
22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Relist Put it with
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity. Or overturn, but anyway there was in no way a concensus for delete.--
T. Anthony
22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Confirm Deletion I feel the delete !votes on the AfD carried more weight than the keep votes, which all relied on precedent and consistancy arguments. How is that different from 'other stuff'? I admit there is an issue of bias in that lists of Western country's leaders by longevity were kept, but that redressing that bias by allowing in trivial things like this is not the answer. Deleting the other lists and adding meaningful, encyclopedic content about non-Western countries is a quality solution, keeping this list is a quantity solution.--
killing sparrows
(chirp!)
22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Precedent arguments can carry some weight on their own merit. If we allow it already, why prohibit it on something else? Honestly, I believe there was no consensus with respect to the decision to delete the Philippine presidential longevity list. --
Sky Harbor
00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Confirm Deletion. Firstly, that
other bad articles exist is not a reason to keep this one. Secondly, there is already a featured list of Philippine Presidents. To introduce another ordered by longevity is a
content fork and should not be encouraged. The existing list should be converted to a sortable table class, and the longevity data added to that one, and then every other column can be sorted too. Need an alpha sort, or a sort by succession date? No problem, use the same article for everything. And yes, I believe every US list should be consolidated too! --
Steve (Stephen)
talk
00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The argument isn't just "other stuff exists"; it's "other stuff exists and subsequently survived AFD" which sets precedent. You can't make a list on US presidents survive and delete the same one regarding people from another country. -
Mgm|
(talk)
10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think you mean
WP:POVFORK and, uh, this is not a content fork. --
JayHenry
00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks, fixed my link. Uh, a content fork is ... creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. Why is this not a content fork? --
Steve (Stephen)
talk
01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I read the "content fork" guideline as being concerned with POV forks. I think that just because you have one list about Philippine presidents doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have other lists about them. Perhaps merging "age at election" and "age after office" and "longevity" into one sortable table would be a solution, but I didn't know that was practical. Certainly merging every president-related list would be too cumbersome. --
JayHenry
01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Confirm Deletion. I am a Filipino and that list doesn't help me at all in any way in my course Political Science. Researching who outlived who doesn't matter, or who lived longest. What matters is what the president did during his term and factors affecting his decisions. Longevity wouldn't affect in any way a president's decision-making. I hope my vote proves in no uncertain terms that the AfD for the US list is not a
WP:POINT because my arguments here goes the same for other lists of this kind. There are lists that are helpful and encyclopedic, this one and others like it is not. This is just trivial and list-cruft.
Berserkerz Crit
06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. Sjakelle's argument "There are many ways to rank things, those which have some sort of impact on the subject matter are justifiable, but since a president's longevity means nothing to the person's presidency, this is not one of those" is extremely convincing and not at all rebutted by the keep proponents, whose arguments consisted entirely of
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If we have this, then why not
Filipino presidents by height or
Filipino presidents by birthplace going North to South, since all have equal relevance to being president of the Phillippines? The closing admin was right to discount arguments which did not demonstrate that the article was not an
indiscriminate collection of information. --
Sam Blanning
(talk)
08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. As Arkyan said: "Cyrus Andiron makes a very valid point that we have List of U.S. Presidents by longevity, of which this list is essentially a clone for another country. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article, but the US list survived an AfD attempt along with a batch of other, similar lists. That makes it precedent, not just "other stuff exists"." There's no reason to treat this any different than the other lists that already have a concensus behind their survival. All articles of this type should be treated the same. -
Mgm|
(talk)
10:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn If this article is deleted, then these articles should listed be on AFD and deleted because of prior precedent:
List of U.S. Presidents by longevity,
Earliest living United States president,
Oldest living United States president,
List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity,
List of United States Presidents by date of death,
List of U.S. Presidents by time as former president,
List of United States Presidents by date of birth,
List of Austrian Presidents by longevity,
List of Presidents of Portugal by longevity,
List of German Presidents by longevity,
List of United States Vice Presidents by longevity,
List of German Chancellors by longevity
List of Austrian Chancellors by longevity,
List of Canadian Prime Ministers by longevity,
List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity,
List of British monarchs by longevity,
List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity,
List of Secretaries-General of the United Nations by longevity. Otherwise, that is a textbook definition of
bias. Also, the closing admin must not have read the comments in the AFD because most of them were in favor of keeping the article. I was under the impression that rulings were based on consesus. When did the whim of an administrator take precedent over that?--
Cyrus
Andiron
12:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. Consistency and avoiding bias are both fine reasons to keep an article. --
AnonEMouse
(squeak)
19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion - the arguments based on the existence of similar lists for other countries are weak.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for keeping this article. Articles on similar topics get treated differently in every day's AFD. Accusations of bias are unsupported and a failure to
assume good faith. It is not bias to want an article deleted, just because that article happens to deal with a non-English speaking country. Arguments like "it's a big country and it deserves to be treated like other countries" are ridiculous on their faces and should be ignored in their entirety. Nothing "deserves" a Wikipedia article and no article is entitled to exist. Articles regarding the United States and Canada and Russia and China and Japan and other countries that are way bigger and more important on the world stage than the Philippines are deleted every day. The closing administrator correctly discounted opinions based on invalid and unpersuasive arguments and properly deleted the article. And if any of the other ridiculous "...by longevity" articles get nominated, let me know and I'll happily !vote to delete them.
Otto4711
04:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Arguments to keep this based on the existence of other article would be weak, were it not for the fact they survived AFD. If AFD decides having such a list is useful, than applying that to all such lists is the logical thing to do. Whether the country is important in world politics is irrelevant because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Personally, I think using sortable tables and merging the lot of them in the main lists is the way to go. -
Mgm|
(talk)
11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That a particular article survived AFD is not a guarantee that another similar article will. Precedent is useful to look at in AFD but it is not ironclad. In addition,
consensus can change.
Otto4711
12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors. I'm amused by
Otto's comment that the U.S., Japan, China, and Canada are more important than other countries because of size. That is pretty much a textbook example of
WP:BIAS. He talked about how any assertions of bias were in
bad faith, and then made a comment about how being "way bigger" made them more important. A bit ironic, huh? When did the size of a country become a determining factor in importance? If that is the case, then any articles on the
Philippines would be more valuable than any articles on the
United Kingdom. The Philippines has 56,000 more square kms of land area and thus is more important. By this logic, all UK articles should be deleted before we tackle anything on the Philippines.
Cyrus
Andiron
12:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Always glad to be able to offer amusement to a fellow editor but I do wish that in this instance it was as a result of something that I actually said. My comment was that other countries are bigger and more important on the world stage, and it was in response to the faulty argument that the Philippines article sould be kept because of the size of the country. In fact, what I'm saying is that the size of any country has no bearing on whether articles about it should be kept. Sorry if that point was confusing for you.
Otto4711
14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Actually you made the distinction between size and their impact on the world stage. The "way bigger" comment was what I was referencing, perhaps you had forgotten. Moving on though, neither one of those criteria should apply in this case. The Philippines is still a country and should be treated with the same respect as any other country. I'm unaware of a policy that restricts "less important" countries in terms of what can be written about them. Please point me to where I could find that information. --
Cyrus
Andiron
15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you, my memory is just fine. You time might be better spent worrying less about my memory and more about your reading comprehension. To rehash yet again: In the AFD, an argument to keep was as follows: "The Philippines is a fairly large and significant nation deserving the same treatment as others." In response to that I noted that articles on countries that are larger and more prominent internationally are also deleted, because the size of a country or its prominence in world affairs has no bearing on whether an article listing off how old its presidents got to be should be deleted. You're fixating on the "way bigger" part of the statement and ignoring that it is part of the phrase "way bigger and more important." Regardless of how twisty you try to make what I said, the point still stands that arguing for this article on the basis of either how big or how important or some combination of the two is not a relevant argument.
Otto4711
17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Forgive me more pointing out the flaws in your argument. As I said earlier, this article was deleted the first time without consensus. Also, it appears that
List of U.S. Presidents by longevity will survive its AFD. Your assertion that articles on countries that are larger and more prominent internationally (in regards to leader's age) are also being deleted is completely ficticious. Is my comprehension all right so far? Please show me where one of those articles has been deleted. I listed quite a few earlier, and they all still appear to have blue wiki links. How is that not biased? --
Cyrus
Andiron
19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, I didn't restrict my comment to articles concerning the age of a country's presidents. Take a look back at my original comment. I referred to articles regarding countries generally, not only specific articles on presidents by age. Perhaps you should concentrate on the words that are really on the screen instead of the ones that aren't anywhere but inside your head.
Otto4711
01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. Looking at the AfD there was clearly no consensus for Delete - there were in fact more "keeps" than delete.
NBeale
|
