Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States (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. Black Kite (t)  01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Listcruft that's managed to stick around since the earlier days of Wikipedia where such lists were commonplace and trivia was rampant. It has been mocked as one of "The Least Essential Wikipedia Pages" and casts a bad light on the project. Strong issues with notability, no references whatsoever, and virtually impossible to determine its completeness. Remurmur (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Most if not all of the entries here are from major film or television productions, and should therefore be easy to source. Some crappy website mocking it is irrelevant. While this may be less clear cut than a list of portrayals of the president of the US, trimming and sourcing looks a better option than deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Can be sourced to primary sources for V, and the topic itself (fictional politicians) is clearly notable. I think the information could be presented in a good bit more succinct manner, but that's a cause for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is exactly is a list of vice-presidents that don't exist "clearly notable"? I can't even name a single fictional vice-president without consulting this list, as I can not recall such a character ever being important to the plot. Is there any reason for this to be seperate from the List of fictional politicians? (Which itself is of debatable notability, but is at least not of ridiculous specificity.) Do we want a list of fictional characters by every occupation? Are some fictional occupations more "notable" than others?--Remurmur (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. At least two come to mind: Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy character) and Glenn Close's character in Air Force One. That being said, I have no opinion on whether a separate list is desirable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This closed a keep in 2007, no sense rehashing, in my opinion. Pop-culture cruft, for sure, but we need to embrace that aspect of Wikipedia, in my view. In any event, Notability Is Not Temporary and this has already been debated and decided, so we should respect that. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- The idea that, just because parent topic X is notable automatically makes List of X notable, has been thoroughly debunked. All topics (and lists are topics) require coverage in reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject of the topic. In the case of lists, this would require sources that discuss the list. In the case of pop culture and fiction, insisting on this is particularly important because otherwise we get a proliferation of badly sourced, fannish articles of dubious reliability, limited scope and minimal usefulness- just like this one. Lastly, Carrite is badly misunderstanding WP:NTEMP. That guideline means that a subject's notability doesn't decline just because no new sources mentioning it are appearing any longer; it does not mean Wikipedia cannot change its mind on whether a subject was notable in the first place. Reyk  YO!  03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Clean-up and Merge as a sub-section of List of fictional Presidents of the United States. Make sure all of the names listed are valid, notable and sourced before merging. — Michael J 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists, and the subject of this one does not meet the general notability guideline. This list goes against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information since the inclusion criteria is merely existing as a fictional Vice President, with no criteria to determine which characters are truly notable to merit being on the list, so I do not think that it is an appropriate list-topic per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since it falls into what what Wikipedia is not. Jfgslo (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, reasonable index of encyclopedia topics. I'm concerned that the list may be too indiscriminate in how minor the characters are that it includes or how minor being VP is to that character (some are apparently characters who become vice presidents in alternate worlds or similar one-off stories).  However, that's an issue for the scalpel of normal editing and discussion to address, not the sledgehammer of AFD.  There are undoubtedly at least a few that merit their own articles or similar substantive treatment (particularly the West Wing characters), making this an index of article topics grouped by a defining characteristic (or an index of notable works of fiction that depict vice presidents).  Insisting that the list itself be notable is neither necessary nor even a coherent way of analyzing it, when the article is not about a list, but the list format is simply being used to provide a navigational and browsing function.  Whether fictional VPs that merit a mention are enough in number to justify a standalone list separate from List of fictional politicians or elsewhere is, yet again, something I would respect as an editing decision.  postdlf (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete per jfgslo. The topic as a whole is not notable. There are no sources that discuss the topic, resulting in a mess of WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Postdlf. Notable topic verifiable through multiple reliable sources.  --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the issue of reliable references is easily addressed. I just added one reference with a few seconds of research. The article seems otherwise sound. Mathewignash (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2011 (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.