Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the New Zealand Parliament who have served for at least 30 years

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 keep. But it sounds like there should be some discussion to unify the tenure standard for various similar articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the New Zealand Parliament who have served for at least 30 years[edit]

[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)

Just trivia. Why not 25 years? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Malaysian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Australian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. No indication that this specific topic is notable. Fails WP:NLIST. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is most certainly a valid encyclopedic article. Perhaps a renaming of the article would be better to bring it in to line with List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service, which likewise uses the 30 year mark as a threshold for inclusion. Kiwichris (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this is absolutely valid encyclopedic content. Thirty years is a long time to be part of the parliament in a democratic nation. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the proposition from Kiwichris to bring this article into line with List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service which is more logically laid out. This also applies to the two other related AfD's. Meets WP:GNG. NealeFamily (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per NealeFamily's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that the list is encyclopedic; no consensus that the list is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tenure of service is a notable concept; otherwise we wouldn't have a Father (or mother) of the House. The question is whether 30 years is the right length of service. But that question isn't the right one to resolve for an AfD; that question is to be resolved via a discussion on the talk page. The issue up for debate here is whether the list is notable and I suggest that yes, it very definitely is. Schwede 66 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What notability guidelines does this fail? Redditaddict6 9 21:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to satisfy WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN. (Those are the only relevant ones) wumbolo ^^^ 21:23, 5 September 2018 (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.