Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional United States Presidents (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No consensus, leaning towards "keep" &mdash; Caknuck (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional United States Presidents
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:NOT, this is over 170kb of cruft from various fictional universes. This is so long and unwieldy that it can not be useful to anyone, but is likely, rather, a place for editors to wax about their favorite books, movies, etc. Each of these fictional persons should be described in articles concerning their own universes, but there is no value in collecting them together. After Midnight 0001 02:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Well organized list, seems to meet WP:LIST.. - Rjd0060 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So what if it's well organized? I could make a well organized list of "random letter combinations that aren't words", and it wouldn't any more useful. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)I didn't say it was not well organized; I said it added no value to the project. A well organized list of cruft is still cruft.  --After Midnight 0001 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems the both of you failed to see the main part of my comment; this list meets our List guidelines. Also, I never claimed anybody already said it was well organized, but I was under the impression that anybody could comment on the content of articles that are nominated AfD, which is specifically what I have done :). - Rjd0060 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I get it. You seem to have failed to demonstrate how this list adds value to the project. --After Midnight 0001 14:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any answer I could possibly give could be argued, as everybody seems to have a different opinion on what is, and what isn't, beneficial to Wikipedia. Again, I will state the list meets our List guidelines, which has also been stated by others in this discussion.  - Rjd0060 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, purely cruft to the extreme. List serves no useful purpose; most of the characters are covered in the pages on their own universes anyway. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment every list has blue links leading to articles, is this the first time you noticed the phenomena? If we had lists of red links ... thats an actual reason for deletion (a directory). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This list is ridiculous. I'm not against the inclusion of lists in wikipedia, but this is just total cruft. will381796 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Can it with the "strongs" and the "ridiculouses" and "crufts."  As for NOT#INFO, exactly which part of that do you think applies?  I read it and it doesn't seem particularly relevant.  WP:NOT seems more relevant.  If people wanted to study fictional representations of: US Presidents, first black presidents, women, assassinations of presidents, etc. it would be useful.  This isn't like providing great detail about trivia of a single (or even multiple) fictional universes.  And unlike, say, a list of "great wizards" or some such thing, this relates to a real subject of import.  There's no great detail about any of the individuals, no "wax[ing] about their favorite books, movies, etc." and if that started happening, those additions could be deleted, rather than the whole list.  Actually, in some cases more detail would be desirable, like dates of publication, if someone wanted to study whether fictional representations of US Presidents occurred more often at certain times in history, and why that might be.  Why it would be argued that it makes sense to have individual articles without a list, I'm not quite sure.  There are individual articles of actual US Presidents and a list of them...? Regards, Шизомби 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is somewhat interesting to read, and is far from the worst article on Wikipedia. Arguing for keeping this is that some commenting here feel it satisfies WP:LIST, probably by being informative or by being useful in navigation. That seems a value judgement, and I just do not share it. Arguing against keeping it is that it violates WP:NOT "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)."  These fictional presidents have nothing to do with one another, for the most part. They are generally not successors, but rather exist in unrelated fictional universes. We could just as easily have a list of fictional outlaws, of fictional U.S generals,  of fictional European knights, or of fictional  warlords, which would also fail WP:NOT. This list also includes a great many entries who are utterly non-notable, having been mentioned in only one episode of a cartoon or tv show. Any entry in such a list should have been discussed in secondary sources beyond the fictional work.  Edison 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Keep It needs a lot of work .... many citations .... however, I see some legitimate use to this list since it is closely connected to an important international position.  I think that there may even be (not that I agree with this, mind you) some scholarly research associated with how important positions (like the presidency) are perceived in fiction. LonelyBeacon 05:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A study of how the US Presidency has been used in fiction would seem a perfectly legitimate topic of interest to me and this list would be an excellent aid to navigation. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers and I fail to see how removing this list would improve it. Nick mallory 13:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet WP:Lists. Shouldnt it be named. List of fictional Presidents of the United States of America? Twenty Years 13:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete loosely bound items Will (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1-Fancruft 2-Not enough information to warrent an individual article 3-No references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.156.143 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Hiding T 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I brought out the main points from WP:NOT#INFO, from the WP:LIST (Content):

1. Is this Encyclopedic content?: While I agree that a great deal of this is pop culture, I don't see that anyone is calling for the articles this stuff comes from being deleted. I think the information itself is encyclopedic (even though I might disagree with some of that, personally). I think this is the strongest point against keeping this article, but I think it meets it.

2. Is the definition of the subject disputable? I think the topic is very narrowly defined, and sufficiently meets this criteria (at least as far as I read this).

3. Is this written from a neutral view point. I don't see this being a point of dispute.

4. Does this constitute original research? I don't think this list constitutes anything that violates the spirit of the original research policy. It is not postulating any newly developed concepts by the author.

5. Does this article contain only material that has been published by reputable sources (verifiability)? I think most of the elements in this article can be verified. This is the strongest case against the article, but is also the simplest to fix. This might mean that certain unverifiable elements may need to be deleted. LonelyBeacon 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete – Let me get this straight, we are debating a “Fictional List” of "Fictional Presidents” from “Fictional" Movies, “Fictional" Novels, "Fictional" Television Shows and “Fictional" Essays. And I am sure I missed some "Fictional" references.  Ahh they say life is stranger than “Fiction”. Shoessss |  Chat  18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets the guidelines of WP:LIST. It's not frivolous, particularly since fictional potrayals of a President of the United States (or for that matter, of a leader of another country, real or fictional) often are commentary about real world issues.  The complaint that it's too big at 170 KB is not a good reason for deletion.  It's kind of a Goldilocks approach to look for an article that's "just right".  Mandsford 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Per WP:NOTE  Alex ' fus ' co5  19:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article does not meet WP:SPEEDY guidelines for speedy deletion. will381796 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I went and looked at the criteria for notability (and PLEASE let me know if I have this wrong):
 * Presumption of notability means that there exists objective evidence that meets the remaining criteria
 * Is there significant coverage?, meaning that citable sources address the subject in detail,and without hte need to make a leap based on original research by the editor.
 * Are there reliable sources? (NPOV, third party, not written by editors involved in the article etc), and especially that they are secondary sources.
 * With the addition: A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
 * I did a cursory google search and found an article from a professor from Southern Illinois University on the topic of fictional presidents in film.
 * Here are links  to a Harvard professor who wrote two books about fictional presidents.  One was co-edited by a Rutgers Professor who is the namesake of the annual film award from the American Historical Association (which sounds almost made up, but appears to be a legitimate scholarly organization.


 * I'm going to admit, this topic means very little to me ..... I am actually more interested in learning about the process of deletion. Please do comment on my Talk Page if there is something legit I am misinterpreting here. LonelyBeacon 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and reference better Add the ISBNs to the books. Its appears to be a valid well written list. The top 100 searches in Wikipedia are always for fictional characters or movies or video games. This is part of a large series on fiction Category:Fictional politicians, so the "indiscriminate" label doesn't hold water. Its an excellent navigational device for searching for a "tip of the tongue" reference, where you don't remember the name of the show or the book. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As you note, there's a "fictional politicians" category, and actually there's a Category:Fictional Presidents of the United States, and the list itself is included in the Template:Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States. That such have existed for this long, and particularly that it had been added to that template and thus seen on a number of different articles without objection tends to support the fact that the article was kept after the first deletion debate, making this one that much more questionable, particularly those that argue it's "obvious" how "useless" the list is or the like. Regards and grumbles, Шизомби 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Question As consensus is obviously for a keep, would anyone be against possibly splitting this article up into separate sections that are more manageable? Perhaps split it up by alphabet (A-F,G-P, etc.) and then by the other remaining sections.  See List_of_Star_Trek_Planets for an example of what I mean.  The length of the article itself is one major problem I see.  Long articles = articles more difficult to edit. will381796 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be against it. To see what happens after you split an article, look at the discussion for "List of cities in Germany beginning with S".  There's nothing that says "divide and conquer" like an alpahabet split. Mandsford 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy, Strong, Uber-ultimate, Over-the-top--, wait, on second thought, just Keep, as it meets our list requirements. BobTheTomato 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand the intro, and reference better. It's a subject of note, though it really needs more of an overview.  I'd also suggest regrouping it by fictional work, not by each fictional character, to better emphasize the way each genre makes use of the subject, and I'd split it into 2+ articles for length (movies, TV, literature+other?)--Father Goose 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * replace with category ie Category:Fictional Presidents of the United States 132.205.99.122 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Few fictional presidents will have articles unto themselves, which means a category would not be a useful substitute for this list. Categories and list articles are not fungible.--Father Goose 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yuk. As if we need individual articles about fictional presidents. Mandsford 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." That's from WP:MOSLIST, in case you were interested. There is no way that any of these fictional presidents would, or could, have a verifiable article written about them. UnitedStatesian 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The sentence that immediately follows that is "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." MOSLIST essentially contradicts itself on that point, and I'd say it's the line you quoted that is the wrong one -- we have plenty of featured lists that contain items that don't have their own articles.--Father Goose 07:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per others. Meets our list requirements. Rray (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LIST. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but perhpas as Fictional United States Presidents. I would have agreed with the suggestion of a category, but most of those listed do not have articles (and probably should not).  It would be better if each had a paragraph about him, rather than a series of bullet points, but that is a reason for a clean up, not for deleting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. LonelyBeacon has demonstrated notablity of the topic. "Not adding value to the project" is not a criteria for deletion, precisely because "value" is entirely subjective. The only objectively meaningful measure of value to the project is essentially the sum of the value to each individual user of Wikipedia; the only way that something could "not add value" is if it was useless to everyone (though for our purposes, we could exclude the "value" which is only to the contributor and his or her close associates), or harmful in a way that exceeds its usefulness. Enough people have independently found this list to have at least some value (and no one has found it harmful) to demonstrate that it does indeed add value to the project. DHowell (talk) 22:15, 6 December 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.