Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages, {{user|David in DC}} made a strong argument for renaming List of people with the longest marriages to List of people with long marriages: The title of this list is extremely misleading. This is not a list of people with the longest marriages. Far too many people with long marriages are left out for that title to be accurate or fair to the unindoctrinated reader. Given the list's bias against people from the majority of nations on earth with inadequate records on this subject, this list page would be much more fairly titled "List of people with long marriages." A rename of the page would address the Wikipedia:No original research|original research concern raised by The Blade of the Northern Lights: "the sources present here basically require us to make all kinds of inferences about what 'the longest marriage' is the longest in the world or a given area". Once the page is renamed, there will be no need to make an inference about what is "the longest marriage". The inclusion criteria of the list would be "people who reliable sources say had a long marriage". To further refine the list's selection criteria, the list could be restricted to people married for at least 80 years.Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria: "people married for at least 80 years who reliable sources say had a long marriage". To address the "no original research" concerns, the only action needed would be a rename of the list.'''Regarding maintenance of the page:'''Slatersteven wrote, "another daft list that will be a pain to maintain". Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Out of date and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, a page's being "a pain to maintain" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The list currently says in the table "Length of marriage (at date of last report or death)". This means that the list always will be accurate (it will not say a marriage is longer than it really was) though it may be out of date (which is fine per the editing policy). Many of the entries on the list cite an obituary, so those entries would not need to be updated.'''No circular reporting found'''I did not find circular reporting in the sources I posted. The AfD participants here have not pointed out circular reporting in the sources I posted.'''The AfD close for List of unusual deaths''':Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3: The result was    '''keep'''. I can find no way that this list violates  and/or , per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically  just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the "want" for the information in perspective.To the point that this list is subjective |OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article "crap", and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter. I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria.Just as "list of unusual deaths" is not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling ''the deaths unusual''", so is "list of people will long marriages" not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling ''the marriages long
— User:Cunard, 05:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:IINFO||WP:LIST||WP:TRIVIA||WP:OR (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)