List of long marriages: I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound.  It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE 's two criteria.  This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines.  Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV , I don't think it has succeeded.  It's still essentially a list of longest marriages.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  This is basically original research.  BoldGnome ( talk ) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What part of this is original research?  It doesn't copy a list someone else has made, but there is nothing here that draws an unsupported conclusion or is unverified synthesis.  It's quite well objectively sourced.  Reywas92 Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Trivial at best.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep - I came to this article due to a meme screenshot about it on Instagram, so it at least has proven relevancy even if it fails to adhere to other guidelines.  - Louisana ( talk ) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is "relevancy" of the article a criterion?  If you mean notability, it's about the topic, not the article, and isn't determined by Instagram memes.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will just note for now that it's perfectly normal to set a threshold for inclusion that keeps the list to a reasonable size.  No source is needed to justify the 80-year threshold.  I mean, there's nothing at List of largest power stations in the United States that sets 1,500 MW "as an appropriate lower bound".  Reywas92 Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep , article is useful to have and is well sourced as it has 191 sources.  Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL .  Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR .  Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that's not what OR means...  Nothing in this article was just made up or synthesized by WP editors, it's entirely besed on sources.  You can argue that compiling information from all these sources isn't notable because most of them are about individual marriages, many just being routine local news recognizing a couple rather than of the broader topic, but I see no original research or unsupported analysis.  Reywas92 Talk 02:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It does appear to meet SELCRIT (unambiguous, objective, and reliably sourced).  Objectively, 80 years is a long time to be married, let alone alive, and as such is a reasonable boundary to regulate size.  The fact that these marriages are even being reported solely due to their length trumps the OR argument;the 80 number rightly keeps the list trimmed and not excessivly long and unnavigatable.  Per Rewas92, Common sense and consensus should agree with that assessment; similar to Paris being the capital of France.  I'm not seeing it as original research; it definitely appears well-sourced and backed up.  DrewieStewie ( talk ) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean keep , we do have sources remarking how unusually long certain marriages can be out of the marriages in a given large region, e.g. longest-married Dutch couple , longest-married Utahn couple , longest-married British couple , so on.  — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung , mello hi!  ( 投稿 ) 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - my problem with this type of content is that it is only generated by collating trivia from many sources.  Sources which have not all been examined as to their reliability.  WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk ) 07:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete .  I was going to say "keep" until I read the related article's deletion rationale.  If editors can't "find reliable sources that track the list's topic" then it can't have a list.  There is also nothing special for the gives 80 year cut-off.  - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Again, lots and lots and lots of lists have an arbitrary cut-off for size and User:Knowledgekid87 's last sentence has no basis in guidelines or precedent as a justification for deletion.  List of largest stars has a arbitrary cut off in the first table of 700 solar radii; List of largest snakes has an arbitrary cut-off of 50 pounds; I contribute to List of photovoltaic power stations , whose arbitrary cut-off has increased from 200 to 300 to 400 MW as more items are added.  There's also no requirement in guidelines or precendent that a topic must be tracked in a different reliable source.  None of the sources for List of the verified shortest people are a tracker that presents the exact same information, nor are any in List of people with the most children , List of oldest living state leaders , the FL List of largest cruise ships or List of heaviest land mammals , List of longest-serving mayors in the United States etc. etc.  "Collating trivia from many sources" is simply not forbidden.  I don't love this list which is why I didn't vote when I made comments above, but I also don't like bad arguments.  Reywas92 Talk 19:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Reywas92 : Couple thoughts.  First, if you don't love the list and want to articulate an argument for deletion outside SELCRIT, I'm all ears.  Second, I'm drafting off SELCRIT's line "Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources " (my emphasis).  I don't work with lists often and am not familiar with the history behind that wording, but with some additional searching it seems like that line could be ambiguous.  You can find other editors wrestling with it in this discussion .  If my reading of the line doesn't reflect how things actually work in practice, let's go make it less ambiguous.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Long marriages are of enduring historical significance and of great importance just like other lists that are mentioned above are as well.  User:Suncheon Boy 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus