Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional United States 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional United States Presidents

 * — (View AfD)

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful summary of a well-defined topic in a large range of fiction.  Passes WP:LIST as a well-annotated list. Tevildo 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful and well-defined list bogdan 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fairly simple list. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu
 * The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation &mdash; Iamunknown 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for same reasons I mentioned in Articles for deletion/List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States.--Velvet elvis81 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No its not; see Otto's first post &mdash; Iamunknown 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: satisfies "Infomation" and "Navigation" criteria of WP:LIST. It's a broad catagory and perhaps a substantially incomplete list, but it does not come close to being an indiscriminate collection. DMacks 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A very interesting list that is fairly well put together. Not necessarily unmaintainable or POV. This list is an interesting snapshot of what the office has culturally meant to different people in different places at different times. --Matth e w UND (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a very useful list for so many reasons, but mainly for trivia, but it also could be used by writers who don't want to repeat a name. I was just scanning it, and found it quite fascinating.  This is one of the examples of why Wikipedia is so great-it has articles that aren't controversial, aren't overly scientific, and are quite interesting to read.  Please keep it.  Orangemarlin 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a reason why this should be deleted. It appears to be incomplete, but lists are always needed to be updated. --Nehrams2020 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Trival argument given for deletion. StudierMalMarburg 16:47, 8 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.