Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ambassadors to the United Nations


 * 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The result of the debate was keep - nomination effectively withdrawn. Proto   ||    type    09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

List of ambassadors to the United Nations
Wonderful, useful, nicely formatted.... and unmaintainable. Wikipedia is not an almanac. I'm racking my brain for some place where this nice list could be kept... any ideas? If not, it would have to go, would it not? It will slowly rot... Herostratus 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. From my talk page: I could redirect Sixtieth session of the United Nations General Assembly, the current session, to the list, archive it when the 60th session is over, and denote changes in ambassadors during that session if possible.


 * We have articles on the membership of the U.S. House of Representatives with 435 members and manage to keep articles on every member, as well as an accurate list of every member, so I do not see how keeping track of an international body of less than 200 people should be more difficult. I came to Wikipedia looking for this list, and it wasn't there, so several months later I decided to spend a few hours tonight coding it myself.


 * Even then, the United Nations clearly updates the list of ambassadors on their own periodically, and, with each update, marks the latest changes in membership. Daniel Bush 08:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel, you make good points and I find them pretty compelling. I guess my concern is, what happens down the road when you go on to other stuff or - God forbid - are struck by a comet or something. However, since UN Ambassadorships are pretty dang notable, the idea that other people would likely step in and keep the list updated is a reasonable one, although one I'm not sure I find totally convincing. You bring up another issue,though, when you speak of linking.... Here is what Wikipedia has done for the list of 500 richest humans. Every year Forbes Magazine publishes a new one, so we have articles on (something all the lines of) "500 richest people (2004)", "500 richest people (2005)", etc (obviously each article is similar but not identical). I wonder if perhaps the article should not be renamed to 'List of ambassadors to the United Nations (sixtieth session? Since Wikipedia is not paper there is no reason not have a list for each session? Herostratus 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. One list is sufficient.  Note that out of the 200 or so people on it, in the last year only 17 have been replaced.  The year before, 36.  That is not an unmaintainable figure.  Once I've got every ambassador stubbed (already done 20 or so today), as they are replaced, it is not difficult to create a new category, called 'Category:Former ambassadors to the United Nations', and populate that.  There's probably a ton of people who could akready go in that category.    Proto    ||    type    17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I believe you. (Hmmmm but then the historical data is lost. Persons in future years, perhaps studying debates, votes, and national interactions at the Sixtieth (etc.) sessions and wishing to know the exact persons involved will be stymied.... dunno if that matters.) Herostratus 08:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 08:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If all these guys had article (they really should) I'd say categorise, but as they don't, I'll vote keep. This is useful and notable information. And maybe I'll start stubbing all these redlinks.    Proto    ||    type    09:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, good list, useful. Such lists are not listcruft and are good information. Ambassadors to the UN are notable, and I would appericiate if one could create a category for this. --Ter e nce Ong 11:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall recieve: Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations. All I have to do now is stub 230-some red links ... feel free to help ;)    Proto    ||    type    13:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as relevant as a list of US Senators or Representatives, in fact probably more relevant since it is an international body. Ben W Bell 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Relevant, notable ... and I can't see why this is unmaintainable. There haven't been that many ambassadors. 23skidoo 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim that it is unmaintainable is absurd. Bhoeble 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per bhoeble. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.  Verifiable.  Slowmover 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As nominator, impressed by energy and cogency of arguments, thus voting Keep. Herostratus 08:40, 17 March 2006 (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.