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 delete. Vanamonde (
Talk) 04:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
An unsourced hodgepodge of 99% non-notable characters (many even without names). A topic like this does better as a category.
★Trekker (
talk) 19:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Things that need sourcing can be sourced, or removed if they prove unsourceable. However, the office of the vice-presidency in the U.S. is subject to notable fictional depictions precisely because of the possibility of the vice president ascending to the presidency through foul play or other shocking narratives. There are also well-explored conventions of vice presidents who exert exceptional influence over the presidents they serve, or who pursue separate schemes and agendas, or who are comparably naive and innocent figures unknowingly aligned with corrupt presidents. Given the potential significance of the position in fictional depictions, a list of such instances is reasonably notable and should definitely be kept and improved.
BD2412T 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: discussed
in this article, specifically with respect to fictional female vice presidents (with some fictional male vice presidents noted for comparison); and
this article touching on the tropes referenced in my !vote. Therefore, this meets
WP:LISTN.
BD2412T 22:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The topic of depictions of the position of Vice President of the United States can be a notable topic, but having this list is not a good way to do that, a list format like this only attracts cruft. A better article could be
Depictions of vice president of the United States in fiction which would be best to start from skracth, I don't see anything in this list worth keeping.
★Trekker (
talk) 23:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The list is inherently worth keeping because, like all lists meeting
WP:LISTN, it catalogs instances of a notable phenomenon. The criteria is not more strict than that. The tendency to attract cruft can be countered by a requirement for sourcing; I have provided a source that already covers ten items on the list, and am confident that more can be found.
BD2412T 23:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't see how keeping this heap of cruft would be beneficial when we could just make a proper article instead. Like I said, there is nothing here of value to keep really.
★Trekker (
talk) 00:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:LISTN. Meets Listcruft. Soon someone will create a List of fictional Assistant EPA directors in Netflix series //
Timothy :: talk 01:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This article meets Listcruft.
TH1980 (
talk) 02:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, this article fails
WP:LISTN, article is mostly a bunch of unsourced fancruft.
Devonian Wombat (
talk) 02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping
Spiderone 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It mostly lacks sources. 8 listed sources for a lengthy list. One of the sources is a twitter message by a novel's writer, another is a YouTube video. The rest seems to be OR.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete due to a lack of sources. Doesn't meet
WP:LISTN.
Archrogue (
talk) 18:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It is high time Wikipedia did something to be rid of this listcruft. It is getting absurd.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete fails LISTN in fictional spades.
——Serial 16:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
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.