Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Vice Presidents


 * 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. JForget 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

List of current Vice Presidents

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

Delete as an unreferenced list with a non-notable intersection. "current" is not static, which provides significant challenge for being encyclopedic. Tavix | Talk  23:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although in poor state, it is comprable to List of current heads of state and government. There is nothing wrong with current articles. See that, List of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations, List of current United States governors, etc. It is perfectly relevant to list current second-in-commands. Reywas92 Talk  02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep But wouldn't it be better as a chart so we can see the previous years too. Each year should be a column. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs refs and some other work, but the topic is notable and there is precedent, as per Reywas93. Cerebellum (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Reywas92 et al. This can be fixed in the normal editing process.  Lists are more difficult to maintain than categories, but that both are allowed, by consensus and precedent.  This is a list that would be of obvious use to our readers. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs a lot of work, but there's not really anything wrong with its topic. Will be hard to maintain, but not impossible. Can't see any violation of WP:LIST, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly redirect to List of current heads of state and government. Just because it can be maintained by someone, in theory, doesn't mean that it can or will.  And I'm not convinced that it will be.  JBsupreme (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It would probably look nicer in the form of a table, but it's obvious from all of the articles called "Vice-President of _______" that there are people who do keep an eye on such things. Part of the process of bringing it up to a current state will be to add this link to the other articles.  I suppose that it's possible that it might not be maintained even after it is linked to other articles, but I'm not particularly bothered by that possibility. Mandsford (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out that there were three changes that needed to be made. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep - sloppiness is not a reason to delete an article, and at this point it doesn't look so bad anyway. The fact that it will require updating on a regular basis is no reason to delete it either. Things change; that's what makes Wikipedia such an ideal medium for an encyclopedia. And it's not like we're talking about the spelling bee champions of an obscure elementary school here...it's the second- or third-in-command in most countries. Frank  |  talk  02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep needs some TLC, but it's definitely a notable list. The implied qualifier that this only lists political positions (as opposed to, say corporate ones) should be made explicit.  Them From  Space  03:19, 11 December 2009 (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.