Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acting President of the United States


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Acting President of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is poorly sourced and is redundant in light of other well-sourced articles on the same subject (e.g., Presidential Succession Act and Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Large portions of the article appear to be unsourced conclusions. To the extent there is any material that is salvageable in this article AND is not mentioned in other articles, such as the ones referenced above, such material can be moved to such article or articles. SMP0328. (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that the acting president of the United States is unquestionably notable, as evident by the term's frequent use in media, educational and legal sources spanning several centuries, and that its not nearly poorly written enough to justify a nuke and pave. Also, I do not believe that the articles you list adequately cover the topic. Both of the articles listed were specific laws and amendments passed during the mid 1900s, while the acting president is a specific position that has a history going back to the late 1700s. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with and would further note that a general overview article for the topic is really necessary for overall topic comprehension, given the varied history of presidential succession. Indeed, if it came down to merging articles, this is the more important topic article, not those of the individual laws. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the sourcing? This article has almost none. As for Philosopher's suggested merger, such an article would be gigantic. Regardless of what happens to this article, the articles I cited should remain independent articles. SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting a merger, but making a point about the respective importance of the articles. Sourcing is important and should be done, but the encyclopedia is not finished and I don't see the current lack of sourcing as terminal for the article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic is clearly notable. The other articles mentioned by the nominator are in-depth sub issues of this primary article. Concerns about flabby writing and bad sourcing are normal editorial matters, not grounds for deletion. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.