Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity

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. ✗plicit 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity

List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

List of Portuguese monarchs by age at accession to the throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely obvious WP:CFORK of List of Portuguese monarchs, which already includes all of this information; and not sorted according to an arbitrary criterion which fails WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The other list has the exact same issues: that content is also covered at the main list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I agree, why have 2 lists of the same thing but in a different order.Masterhatch (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnecessary content fork. Mccapra (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No encyclopedic purpose to such a list unless the criterion has actually been discussed significantly in IRS, which it has not. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nom. The article is just a useless WP:CFORK with some WP:TRIVIA sprinkled in. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (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.