Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential candidate firsts (2nd nomination)

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. Since this discussion was relisted, consensus has shifted towards this article not satisfying WP:LISTN and being WP:SYNTHy despite having many well-sourced individual entries. No keep !votes, old or new, have effectively refuted this line of reasoning. ^Complex/_Rational 14:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential candidate firsts

AfDs for this article:

[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)

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while claims can individually be verified, the set as a whole suffers from the same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. I read through the prior AfD for this page and find the keep rationales expressed there unpersuasive (and essentially identical to the arguments raised in the later discussions I've linked here that were both closed delete) Wikilawyering: I think that the close of the first AfD for this page is particularly incongruous with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts two weeks later, a page with a much stronger claim to meeting LISTN, as sources compiling the firsts of US presidents as a set do exist, but which was closed as no consensus...but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. There is possibly some information in this page that could be merged to related biographies or related lists, although other than perhaps List of United States presidential firsts there is unlikely to be a good candidate for this to redirect to post-merge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Not sure how we could delete this one, when it comes to Presidents, we have Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the presidential candidate if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NLIST merely states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Simply pointing out that an article doesn't meet a Wikipedia policy criteria that merely states "one accepted reason" for meeting notability is not itself a valid argument for deleting a page. And this is clearly a notable topic, as demonstrated by the numerous sources on this page as well as recent media coverage such as the The Washington Post which have discussed presidential candidate firsts. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover this, it has references to prove that. Dream Focus 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. There are plenty of sources for presidential firsts, but candidates? None that I've been able to turn up. The Washington Post article is about the firsts of a single candidate, Kamala Harris, not a group. (It's also very silly to include the candidate for the first election because everything old George did was a first.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of these firsts are pretty damn silly, e.g. "First major party nominee to die before the official tallying of electoral votes". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that silly? He lost so it didn't ultimately affect the 1872 United States presidential election, but it was an important event in the history of the electoral college: United States Electoral College#Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then "First victorious candidate with a spouse born outside of North America". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per nom, I can see why this article meets some criteria for deletion, but upon reading it, its content seems worth keeping. It was put together well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orser. NLIST does not give any criteria that this article needs to meet, so that delete reason is invalid. Beyond that, not much from the past AfD has changed which was a clear keep. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strange reading of LISTN. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group pretty clearly establishes that we're expected to provide sources that discuss the set of list items as a group (if not necessarily in granular, enumerative detail each time). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but require any addition to be sourced Same as presidential first _pbp 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are referencing WP:NLIST, please explain how the page meets or fails to meet the guideline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the arguments to keep here have little to no basis in policy. All topics need to be demonstrably notable to have a Wikipedia article, including lists. No such demonstration has been made here, and with the inclusion criteria being as woolly as they are, I don't see any argument that can be made. The historical content is largely okay, but the framing is such that we're setting ourselves up for trivia in the internet age ("first candidate to eat a burrito in a live TV debate") where the antics of any minor candidate would need to be included if even a marginal publication supports them. At the very least this needs reframing: "demographic firsts..." "electoral college firsts..." or something along those lines, though I would not personally like to see such articles either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The topic covered here does not meet NLIST. I have been unable to find sources that give significant coverage to the concept of "presidential candidate firsts". Additionally, this fails NOTTRIVIA; it's more like a listicle than an encyclopedic entry. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to expand on my comment above, what we want to see is sources describing the topic as a whole. All I can find is one-off descriptions of when a "first" occurred. Also, like Vanamonde93, I do not see a coherent inclusion criteria. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like an easy delete, although I respect the views of those in disagreement above. This topic easily fails NLIST criterion. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's well sourced and people use it. Bkatcher (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's two currents running through the keep !votes; a novel interpretation of NLIST and that the article is sourced. Discussions of lists at AfD have consistently concluded that notability is demonstrated by showing that the *class* (subject, if you will) of the list is discussed in reliable sources (see for example: AfD on List of US Supreme Court decisions considered the worst, AfD on List of palaces in the United States, AfD on List of 2020 United States presidential electors). This is perfectly in accord with NLIST; what keep !votes are suggesting is an interpretation of NLIST that would be in conflict with *policy* on WP:SYNTHESIS. No keep !vote has shown, nor does the article contain, sourcing which speaks of the class of the list. Lacking this, there is no non-WP:OR way to define WP:LISTCRITERIA and the list is inevitably indiscriminate, again failing a core policy. While items might be sourced, an agglomeration of notable facts does not per se make the agglomeration notable, conversely some facts per se may not be notable, but their agglomeration might well be (as the 2020 presidential electors discussion demonstrates). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2024 (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.