Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of elected or appointed female heads of state


 * 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of elected or appointed female heads of state

 * — (View AfD)

I have two main reasons for nominating this list:
 * 1) Scope appears non neutral. Why have a list of heads of state that expressly leaves out female monarchs and dictators? This seems to inherently suggest that there is something wrong with those governmental systems.
 * 2) Superfluous. The topic is already aptly covered by Category:Female heads of state and its subcategory, Category:Queens regnant. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)  (nomination withdrawn see below)


 * Keep. (2) A category can't replace this list (e.g. it can't be annotated or re-sorted). (1) You may want join the discussion on the list's talk page, if you want to rename it or redefine its scope. A reason for the current title may be that female succession to the throne seems more common than election or appointment. -- User:Docu
 * Keep As the list contains considerably more information than a category can provide, I don't think the latter could/should replace the former. I also have no particular problem with the scope, and if you (the universal "you", not specifically referring to the nominator) do, you should suggest changes, not deletion. -- Kicking222 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that this list works better than a category. And it certainly is manageable considering it cannot go beyond two hundred something. TSO1D 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep POV concerns can be addressed, and I agree that this works better as a list than as a category. Resolute 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Monarchy is a fundamentally separate institution, and the article doesn't mention "dictators" at all. —Sesel 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nom. In light of the views expressed here I recognise I may have been over-zealous in nominating the article. It is clear my POV concerns are not widely shared (and could potential be sorted by another route). I am also persuaded by the arguments as to why a list is more appropriate than a category in this case. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:11, 4 January 2007 (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.