Deletion of List of United States Presidents by longevity

Comment: You are mixing points. Yes what they did post-presidency is important and a coverage of research and encyclopedic but not their longevity. Your opinion seems to constitute  by surmising that those who live longer are given benefit of doing more work than those who live short, but that goes for any person. Live longer, do more. Live short, did less
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as a |content fork of a basic list.  Add the extra column there and make it, and everything else, sortable as the new formats allow
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Sorry, I don't get this at all, how can anyone's opinion in a deletion discussion possibly be criticised as 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This is a  nomination and should be viewed as such. Nominating editor said, in the AfD for List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity|Philoppine Presidents by longevity that if that closed out with a delete than he would "nominate this one out of spite." This has  written all over it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:POINT)

Comment: Is the purpose of this AfD simply to make a  on the Philippine Presidents deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: if this is kept and the Philippine list deleted how do we reconcile the apparent 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: there is nothing wrong with 'trivia' as long as it is sourced/notable. The argument based on the #IINFO statistics point is irrelavent, if you actually read the paragraph. It never said that a list could never be based on statistics. What it ''does'' say is that statistic lists should simply not be long or sprawling and that there should be sufficient explanatory text for the reader. This article does not violate either of those clauses
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  as a pile of statistics
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: There is now an ongoing Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_1#List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity|deletion review for the deletion of List of Philippine Presidents by longevity.  Any comments on whether the closing administrator correctly assessed |consensus in that case should be directed to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_1#List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity|the deletion review page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CON)

Comment: tell John McCain that lifespan has nothing to do with President, because everywhere he turns there are people telling him it does.  Look, this information is |easily |verifiable, it's |NPOV, it's considered important by many, many historians and political observers.  It's a |discriminate list.  Both age in office, age in death and age after office are widely discussed in the media, in presidential biographies, etc.  This is, per any definition, E|notable stuff.  It has very real implications for what the role of an ex-president is in U.S. society.  And U.S. Presidents, less powerful than they once were, are nonetheless among the most important political figures and statesment both in the U.S. and the world.  It's worthwile to have this information in a list for sake of comparison.  It'd be highly tedious for someone seeking this information for any of the half-dozen reasons mentioned above, to click through all 43 articles to figure it out.  This information certainly has a place in an |not-paper encyclopedia.  Frankly, this would be a good candidate for a featured list.  If you read  it doesn't violate anything in it.  If not for the delete vote I'd say speedy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:NOTE||WP:PAPER||WP:LIST)