Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009


 * 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, this discussion is overwhelmingly in support of keep, with most of the dissension in favor of merging. That can always be done later. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOTNEWS This single speech is not notable enough for a discrete article. L0b0t (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a speech before a Joint Session of Congress. If this speech does not warrant an article then we need to delete all articles on State of the Union addresses since they would likewise be not worthy of articles since this speech is technically a state of the union speech (See Article II, Section 3). The Constitution does not fix the number of times or frequency of these speeches. I think that any time President's deliver State of the Union speeches to Congress that they are notable enough for a separate article. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Keep this article! I agree that this article needs to be improved, but this is one of the most important speeches, if not THE most important speech in his young presidency. Do not delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.209.220 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- this is a historic adress to congress, we will read about this in our history books, and hopefully in WP also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.169.42 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Perhaps, but if it can be improved why not keep it. This is also being featured on the front page of Google news and there is a link to this article on the #2 story. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes a speech "notable" enough? There are various other speeches with articles, shall we delete them as well? Yonskii (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that at least one of his other speech articles should be deleted, but the rest are somewhat more notable. Soxwon (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. According to many mainstream characterizations, one of his most memorable speeches. --kizzle (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep if one commentator was correct, that there have been few (16?) of these joint session speeches outside the state of the union address, since 1950, then this is historic and notable. article will have to be filled out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It should be Wikipedia policy to have an article on every single presidential speech before a joint session of Congress. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge with another Obama article The man is going to make many more speeches, this one doesn't need it's own article. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a speech? you kidding?? Is WP so lacking in perspective these days? This is not State of the Union address. Of course presidential speeches get coverage, but there appears nothing nome notable than any other presidential speech. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge While a notable speech, should be rolled up into the Obama article or a notable events in Obama presidency article. Although, the idea that a congressman would shout "You lie!" during a presidential address does seem notable and worth documenting. JakeZ (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge very notable and historical due to the conditions it was called upon, the subject it covered, and the events that took place during it. all make it very notable.  Skiendog (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge The speech is important, but the article is far too short. A merge to an article documenting all of Obama's speeches seems very appropriate, in my opinion. L337 *P4wn 04:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand Seems to be notable. While there's no policy, it'll probably be one of his most important speeches, especially considering the fact that is was a joint session of Congress. Guy0307 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep True, while this article was not a State of the Union speech, it was a speech in front of a joint session of Congress, only the second so far of Obama's term (the first being his first State of the Union, which does have an entry at Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009). Further, it is a major aspect of a main policy initiative of the Obama administration that has both been widely debated and broadcasted in the media; it is a speech that has been given by Obama to attempt to rescue his goal of universal health coverage, a main campaign promise.  JEN9841 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge, it is notable and has to be covered, but probably not on its own. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BBC News has called this speech "one of the most important speeches of his presidency" Source. This, the morning after the speech, every news source I can find has front page coverage of the outbreak that happened during the speech (including Yahoo! News, the Washington Post, USA Today, The Huffington Post, CNN, etc,).  It seems that, if this controversy draws on, the outburst during the speech itself could have its own entry. This speech is already more notable than his first State of the Union; all SOTU speeches have entries. JEN9841 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole and recentism aren't grounds for an article. Soxwon (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If BBC called Star Wars the greatest film ever, we could not call Star Wars the greatest film ever in our article. That is what is called an opinion.  Googlemeister (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Expand As a speech to a joint session of Congress on a very important issue, this article should be kept and expanded on. If these pages are worth keeping (A More Perfect Union (speech), 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address and Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008), are worth keeping, then this page certainly is. Nevermore  | Talk 08:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The refs are there, it's not like a president speaks to a joint session every day. Joshdboz (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Speeches to joint sessions of Congress are by definition noteworthy, especially when they get as strong reviews as this one. --Mr Beale (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- This easily transcends not news into encyclopedic territory. Between the nature of the speech, the fact that FOX refused to carry it, and the guy who heckled the president during the speech (to the fact that that guy apologized almost immediately after, and his opponent gained a boatload of donations that night), there's enough here that an encyclopedic entry is necessary. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to the heckler, as of this article, the heckler's opponent has raised nearly $100,000 in the time since the outburst, which helps demonstrate notability outside of just regular news. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This historically rare Presidential speech is, well, just that. The suggestion otherwise by a self-proclaimed history buff (Confederate references, etc.) are surprising on the one hand, and unsurprising on the other.  Personal prejudice and political opinions aside, the notion that this rare event is pedestrian and unworthy of note is simply off the mark. --fudoki 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Merge I think that there is an incredible amount of recentism involved here. While every speech the President of the United States makes is covered by sources, I don't think it is practical policy to have an article for each one. Moreover, the same would have to hold true for every president of every nation. The health care debate is a big deal now, but there will be other political battles and each one will appear just as important at that time. The argument that this is only his second joint-session is a bit weak because he has been in office for less than 1/4 of his first term. The speech could prove to be decisive in the future, at which time it will deserve its own article, but at present it is just another chapter in the ongoing US health care debate and should be put in that article or mentioned briefly in the Obama article. The idea that it will "probably be" one of his most important speeches only highlights the lack of perspective we have at this point and the fact that its importance has yet to be put into context. Mrathel (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Particularly notable to the President's initiatives in healthcare, which itself is a major issue of his presidency.--Louiedog (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The speech deserves a page, let's not delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.190.194 (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep- it was a speech on one of the most important initiatives of our time.Wikireader41 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * commentThat's more of an opinion than a rationale:) Mrathel (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article meets WP criteria for notabilty, verifiability and is not OR. where is your 'rationale' for deletion. which WP policy does it violate ?? it needs to be expanded for sure not deleted.Wikireader41 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge - if the speech is significant because of a rare address to a joint session then merge it with other articles on those rare speeches. Otherwise delete since it appears to just be a news article --Dolomite501 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - This article can either be kept and expanded or merged into say "Health Care Reform in the United States" or the congressional bill's article. It's notable to keep because it's not too often that the President makes an address to the joint session unless it's a State of the Union address (last one was after 9/11).  conman33  (. . .talk)  15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - There are some in the news industry calling this the most significant speech of Obama's Presidency. If that's not grounds for notability or keeping the article in some way, I don't know what is. keep it, or merge it, but don't dare delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.186.135 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, or at least merge, per user:Soxwon, user:Ohconfucius, and user:Mrathel. The claim by user:Fudoki that the speech is "rare" cannot be taken seriously: this President gives speeches and press conferences ad nauseum, to the point one wishes he'd shut up and do some work instead, and the high-profile venue doesn't make this one any more notable. user:JEN9841, User:Joshdboz, and a few others dispute that last point; Josh says that "it's not like a president speaks to a joint session every day." I don't see why that matters, but let's suppose it does: Obama could talk to this Congress any time he wants. We should be skeptical of reasoning that allows people to sua sponte transform non-notable actions into notable actions. This speech would not be independently-notable (at least, ex ante) if it had been given at a townhall, so we know that it isn't the content that is notable. And the venue shouldn't change that. If the speech becomes notable in hindsight, when the dust has settled, we can revisit the issue of whether to have an independent article (see WP:RECREATE), but to have an independent article right now? No way. This is recentism and fancruft at its worst. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Presidents make speeches. We can not have an article for all of them.  In fact, we only have 11 state of the Union addresses, and those without articles would likely be more notable.  It is not like this was the Gettysburg address.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Commment This speech is notable because it is a State of the Union address (See Article II, Section 3). We can't arbitrarily add additional criteria to what constitute a State of the Union address and then exclude any speech before a Joint Session of Congress that do not fit our arbitrary criteria. That places Wikipedia editors as the final determination of what is noteworthy and what isn't and would violate neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Phrased differently: Why is one address before a Joint Session of Congress noteworthy while another isn't? See 2009 State of the Union Address for a claim that Obama's 2009 State of the Union is not a State of the Union. There may be disagreement as to what constitutes a State of the Union but we should not give added weight to one side of that argument. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
 * This was most certainly not a State of the Union Speech, as those occur in either January or February. Your statement is akin to calling a football game between The Tampa Bay Bucs and the New York Jets on Dec 13, 2009 the Superbowl because it was at the same venue.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Capitalizing not does not make you correct. The Constitution defines the President's obligation to give Congress information about the state of the union and recommend measures the President feels necessary. The Constitution doesn't require that a State of the Union speech occur in January or February even though traditionally the President has choose to give state of the unions around that time but they can occur more frequently or at any time throughout their Presidency. This would be more like calling the Superbowl just another football game even though the rules of the game define it as a Superbowl. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Merge when there is an article (or concrete section of Health care reform in the United States) on the bill that is ultimately voted on. Keep until then. » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, or at the very least merge I think this is just on the line of notable, given the location of the address, but if we can't expand it that much, it may be better to merge it into an article about the healthcare bill instead. Sceptre (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into article(s) on health care reform efforts. The disruption should also be mentioned in the article of the congressman who did it, since it received substantial attention in reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lean Keep: Gosh, didn't he just speak last night?  Do you people ever sleep?  I was watching GLEE myself.  Now then, there do seem to be multiple articles for different obama speeches.  This speech's news coverage already crosses the line into notability, the only question to me is where it goes organization-wise.  Its own article? Or some other article that compiles other speeches.  Without knowing the best categorization at this point in time, i lean to allowing it its own article for now. --Milowent (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: You deletionlists are just too much. If people want to go to the effort to create such a thing, then what is the cost of keeping it??? These are the same people who said that Glenn Beck's rants against Van Jones were not notable until Van Jones resigned, and you still can't say Glenn Beck had anything to do with it unless you could cite a reliable source, and you can't use the Huffington Post or Arianna as a reliable source? Good gosh. This is exactly the sort of internet censorshiop Mark Llloyd and Hugo Chavez would love to use on the alternative press. Heck you can't even state that Barack Obama WAS a muslim as far as his two indonesian schools registered him, it currently states that his stepfather who prayed at the Mosque and took Barack with him was a NON-PRACTICING muslim, and that any FACT that might support a fringe theory must be supressed whether or not it's true on its own? The word "muslim" has been completely scrubbed from his biography, with a big talk warning that no mention of controversy over his muslim origins or HERITAGE will be allowed. Nothing on there says his grandfather, father or stepfather were muslims, or that he had ever walked to a mosque, because it's "trivia" Sheesh. Katmairock (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the article on Health care reform in the United States. The president himself has been on TV so much as to render any one speech (even one to a joint session of Congress) not particularly notable.  QueenofBattle (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The deletionists appear to be getting ahead of themselves.  The speech has immediate newsworthyness.  In the coming days, weeks, and months it can be judged on its historical context.  If it is found lacking then it can be merged into another article.  The general health care debate article is likely to be far too large to give this particular subject due coverage making it meaningfull to have a child article for the health care debate.  Also, Rep Wilson's outburst is better getting its core coverage here than in his article.  The pixels being spread on that topic could almost justify an article in itself. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per JEN9841. Kuralyov (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - for now, anyway. Once this is all over, and the 2009 U.S. Health Care Reform article is written, it can be merged. Seduisant (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and merge into an article on the healthcare bill or the 2009 reform efforts if and when such an article exists. In this case, I think the clear evidence of notability outweighs the relatively insubstantial evidence of recentism.b– Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily, such an article has existed since March 2008, please see Health care reform in the United States. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but that article's quite long as it is, and it seems probable that a 2009-specific article or an article on whatever bill eventually passes will be split off at some point. If/when that happens, the speech article could be merged there. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. An incredibly notable event right now. Let's see where it goes, and then we could have a legitimate discussion.  Grsz  11  19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very strong speech, and one that could significantly affect the culture of the United States if successful. If President Obama is not successful in his goals, then this speech will be less notable. coyote (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. To the extent the speech is noteworthy because it took place in front of a joint session of Congress, it's worthy of a mention in a summary article about all such speeches, and it could be mentioned in the existing article on health care reform in the U.S. (which covers the campaign discussions as well) -- but that's it.  Claiming that this speech is noteworthy because some doofus from South Carolina heckled the president is ridiculous; imagine if we had made a new article every time George W. Bush got heckled (I don't believe there's a separate article about the Iraqi throwing his shoes at Bush).  As far as the health care bill, the Gang of 6 negotiations are far more important.  Basically, this was a photo op for the national TV networks.  If we were launching a Wikipedia newspaper, this is a good article, but it is in no way encyclopedic. -- AyaK (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Then no State of the Union address is noteworthy enough to have its own article. We don't have a right to arbitrarily decide what is a State of the Union address when Article II, Section 3 defines "state of the union" broadly. See 2009 State of the Union Address for claims that Obama's 2009 speech before a Joint Session of Congress is not a State of the Union. Should we delete that article too? Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Shoeing and Muntadhar_al-Zaidi cover the shoe throwing in quite some depth. Ronabop (talk)
 * Merge or Delete (or Expand) The article I just read is unduly weighted towards the Republican response, both during and after the speech. There is nothing in the article that is notable about the speech itself. The most notable item mentioned in the article seems to be the interruption, but that is something that should be merged into an article about the current healthcare reform debate. It's certainly not enough for an entire article. Unless the article is expanded to show the notability of the speech it should either be merged or deleted. Argel1200 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If consensus is reached to keep this article then that consensus would have to be applied to all potential, past and future joint session of congress speech articles given by presidents.   Burningview    ✉  20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and what is wrong with that? 75.173.156.88 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand NOTPAPER, and presidential addresses to joint sessions of congress are certainly verifiable, historic national events in the US. This wasn't some stump speech or town hall meeting. Per Burningview's comment, I certainly would like to have reference material available on all past joint session events. Ronabop (talk)
 * Could you explain why speaking before a friendly, controlled crowd on Capitol Hill is not only more notable but ipso facto more notable than a "stump speech" given anywhere else? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Because such speeches are State of the Union speeches (See Article II, Section 3). If one State of the Union is notable for an encyclopedic article then all should be notable for the same purpose. We should not be arbitrarily deciding that one speech before a Joint Session of Congress is notable while another is not. From a history point of view that would be like giving us some articles on some Presidents while deciding that the same articles on other Presidents are not notable enough to receive the same coverage. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Actually, not all speeches to Congress by the President are state of the union addresses, and this one certainly wasn't, as you'd know if you actually read Art. II § 3 instead of condescendingly citing it as though we weren't thoroughly familiar with it. But that's by-the-by. The more important point is, as I explain below, that you're right that we shouldn't arbitrarily decide that one speech is notable while another isn't. That is precisely why this article should be deleted: We don't have articles on all Presidential speeches to Congress, or even all SOTU addresses, oral or written. And nor should we, because not all of them are notable. To include this article IS to arbitrarily decide that THIS one is more important, notwithstanding that ANYTHING written about its importance is necessarily speculative, unreliable, and unencyclope&aelig;dic. Whether this speech is a headline, a footnote, or entirely forgotten in six weeks--it's 9/11 today, and who among us remembers what George W. Bush was speechifying about on 9/9/01?--is something that we cannot possibly judge until we have the kind of perspective on this speech that we have on those SOTUs for which we DO have articles. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * SOTU ceremonies typically also include the supremes, happen at the same time of year, etc. That being said, SOTU isn't especially well defined. Addressing my original argument, however, I would say that a US president addressing a joint session of congress is a notable event in and of itself. It's the equivalent (in UK terms) of the Queen and Prime Minister, gathering the house of Lords, and house of Commons, to give a joint address on an issue. Ronabop (talk)


 * Comment Tradition and ceremony don't define a State of the Union address before a Joint Session of Congress while the Constitution defines it in broad terms. It states that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Our traditions should not govern what Wikipedia considers to be noteworthy. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Comment How dare you question or attack my character? My comment was not condescending. It was my opinion and you have no right to attack me and I won't let it go unchallenged. If anyone's comment is condescending it is yours since you claim that I would cite something I haven't read because I disagree with you. Article II, Section 3 provides that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." That is the State of the Union clause. Then it goes on to talk about the President's power to convene and adjourn legislative sessions which is similar to State Constitutions grants of power to Governors to call Special Legislative sessions. The State of the Union Clause is in two parts. The first part requires the President to give Congress information about the state of the union and the second is to recommend to their consideration such measures that the President feels is necessary. Obama gave Congress information about the state of the union in respect to health insurance and recommended health care measures in this speech. So it certainly qualifies as a state of the union address. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Weak keep. I came here to say, "ah, textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS," but I was quite convinced by the keep arguments above, which highlighted the implications of this event. Now, Health care reform in the United States does exist, but does not address 2009 directly. I could live with a merge to an article about this current reform if created. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally it should be merged into an article regarding the 2009 Healthcare Reform, but in its absence this page should be kept for now. - Mailer Diablo 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whittle down to about a paragraph, and insert into Health care reform debate in the United States. Pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, but a Presidential address to a Joint Session of Congress, even if it's not a State of the Union Address, is important enough for a subsection somewhere. — Mike : tlk  21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Commment Can you list the criteria for a State of the Union address? (See Article II, Section 3) How is this not a State of the Union and how are the same type of speeches before Joint Sessions of Congress not State of Union's. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * I agree with above, merge or pare down. The significance of the speech cannot be determined immediately after the speech. Expand later if Obama reaches his goals. Right now, that isn't certain at all. Kidshare (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP This speech may have changed the course of US health care and is also notable for the major breach of protocol committed by a congressman. People are going to want to review this for years to come.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prwagner3 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the same kind of recentism that, back in January, had an editor demanding that our article on John G. Roberts be turned over almost entirely to a discussion of his administration of the oath of office. I think he may even have used those very words ("[p]eople are going to want to review this for years to come"), but either way, the spirit was the same. And it's nonsense in both cases. No one cares today to review what was said by the last President to promote a failed healthcare initiative through a speech to a joint session, and even if they did, it certainly wouldn't require its own article. This should be deleted or merged until we have sufficient perspective to say anything that isn't wildly speculative as to its long-term notability. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes agreed, see WP Recentism   Burningview    ✉  22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment See deletionism for a discussion about "restrictive, arbitrary and subjective standards of notability" being applied to exclude some article while keeping others of the same type and how this is a form of "activism of a group of Wikipedians who take a certain position in the overall debate on what Wikipedia is or should be." (See also recentism). I haven't read any valid reason for deleting this article as opposed to any other speech by a President before a Joint Session of Congress and no explanation as to why some are noteworthy while others are not. What makes a State of the Union address by a former President before a Joint Session of Congress more noteworthy then a similar speech by a current President before a Joint Session of Congress? Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Comment Would you make the same claim about every State of the Union? Will people care to "review what was said by the last President to promote failed proposals through a State of the Union speech to a joint session" and "if they did" would you also say that it "certainly wouldn't require its own article." Why do the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009 State of the Union's require their own articles while the September 9, 2009 State of the Union address doesn't? (See Article II, Section 3). As for its "long term notability" please see recentism and deletism for an explanation about using overly narrow criteria for notability. The arguments you use for deleting this would have to be fairly applied to every State of the Union speech which means that everyone of them should be deleted because no one "cares to review what was said by the last President to promote failed proposals through a State of the Union speech to a joint session." Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Of course, as most all of us recognize, the president's address to a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009 was not a State of the Union address. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment So who determines what is a State of the Union? You? Those who agree with you? You are putting yourself up as the final determination of what is noteworthy and what is a State of the Union. Were Jefferson's written State of the Unions actually a State of the Union by your narrow definition of what constitutes a State of the Union? Certainly not, but that does not mean they weren't State of the Unions. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Keep The speech looks like some sort of turning point, for good or ill, in terms of health-care reform in the United States. Ngchen (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Early returns are, obviously, early, and I don't think we have remotely sufficient distance from the event to adequately judge, but it's worth noting that those early returns aren't favorable to the "game changer" theory. Rasmussen is reporting that since the speech, support for Obamacare has increased from 44% to 46%. That's dang close to moving it out of the margin of error! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How can we judge that ex ante? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The same could be said about every State of the Union and it seems to me that we can determine ex ante that something is noteworthy because Wikipedia editors do it all the time. We have a host of articles on State of the Unions (approximately thirteen) and an effort to create more. Some of these articles are stubs and only give the day and who the President was. How are these article noteworthy while this one is not? I'm fundamentally in disagreement with the idea that a President speaking before a Joint Session of Congress is not a noteworthy event for an article. Whether this speech is a turning point is an opinion but its a valid opinion and some people will use these articles to formulate their own opinions. It's not the role of a group of Wikipedia editors to unilaterally and arbitrarily decide that one speech by the President before a Joint Session of Congress is worthy of a stub while another speech by a President before a Joint Session of Congress is not worthy of lengthier artile. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * completely agree Edward. this speech was widely reported and debated in the world media ( not just US media).  for anybody to think that this speech is not noteworthy is just mind boggling.  article needs to be expanded for sure.  whether the healthcare reform goes forward or not in no way diminishes the notability of this speech. Wikireader41 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment See deletism to read an overview of how some editors with a specific opinion about what Wikipedia is seek to impose that view on all articles and delete any that don't fit their narrow definition of noteworthy. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * You're right: the same could be said about every State of the Union. But you have mistaken the valence of the point. We do not have an article on every state of the union address. A speech can be sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article, but it isn't inherently so, and we shouldn't have an article on it until we can judge it from an appropriately ex post perspective. That is inherent in the concept of encyclop&aelig;dic content, one of the five pillars of this encyclop&aelig;dia. This isn't wikinews or Barackopedia. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you arguing for the integrity of Wikipedia, or against a leader you dislike? The fact that this speech is NOT a "State of the Union", but IS only the 15th or 16th Presidential Address to a Joint Session of Congress in the history of our Nation is the very thing that makes this rare event worthy of a discreet entry.  The unique position of this speech as a rare, non-State of the Union joint-session speech is what qualifies it as special and historic - regardless of any other criteria.  The absence of articles on previous speeches of this type, or State of the Union Addresses has no logical bearing on the discussion beyond a reminder that perhaps those aware of the lack of such articles might get busy and fill those gaps.  Wikipedia is, and always be, a work in progress.  To argue that this process is served by censorship and the elimination of content is strange, and appears to be motivated by a personal dislike of the President above any other consideration, else, specifically make your case on the merits and drop the invective (Barackopedia...) that does nothing to advance the conversation. User:fudoki 14:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with you. See deletism for a discussion of this. I don't agree with you about this not being a State of the Union but that goes to show that using an overly narrow definition of noteworthiness isn't appropriate. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * And are you ignoring Wikipedia policy to support a leader you like? See, not nice, is it? See WP:AGF. And crying "censorship" is truly the lamest, most predictable argument that we see at AfD; I'm truly surprised that any experienced editor would make such an argument, and I know that none would take it seriously as such. While I truly doubt that it's "only the 15th or 16th Presidential Address to a Joint Session of Congress in the history of our Nation," even if it is, that does not make such speeches notable by itself. The speech is notable if it is notable. Does the speech happen in a unique situation? Does it say anything important? Does it have an important effect? No, no, and too soon to tell. There may be other factors, too. Mere novelty or rarity, however, does not create notability. As to your observation that "[t]he absence of articles on previous speeches of this type, or State of the Union Addresses has no logical bearing on the discussion," that remark is better directed to those like Edward, who are advancing an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that this article should stay because we have (and should not have, in my own view), articles on recent SOTU addresses. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have a specific article covering George Bush's March 6, 1991 speech before a joint session of congress about the end of the first Gulf War? No.  We included that in the Gulf War and George Bush articles.  This article is not more notable then the end of a war, and should not be treated differently.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That the Web Browser was not available until 1992 likely has something to do with the absence of an article about a 1991 non-SOTU Joint-Session Presidential address, but the absence of an article in Wikipedia does not change the rarity or historic significance of the address, or the validity of posting an entry for a current historic address. I have only commented on this topic because, as a Republican since 1964, I feel it makes the GOP look petty and mean-spirited to attempt to attack the current President in every way and every venue possible and at all times.  The suggestion that an historically rare event being documented in WP in a discreet article is bad because the President, or what the President said is trivial, unimportant, etc. - to attempt to generally diminish and minimize the President in an historic setting can only be seen for what it is, partisan attack.  My feeling is that such attacks are inappropriate, even against a President that I did not support or vote for - so much for the "leader you like" speculation...  The address was an undeniably historic event, and therefore is fair game under Wiki rules for a unique listing and article.  Anyone that doubts my comments about the political motivations of those in opposition need only look at the attempted "edits" to the article for verification... User:fudoki 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fudoki, please assume good faith on the part of your co-editors. This is yet another example of a never-ending debate of deletionism vs. inclusionism philosophies on Wikipedia, and can be explained without assuming those who disagree with you are making "partisan attacks." --kizzle (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment He was not assuming bad faith but others have including those who have attacked my character because I disagree with the argument that we should delete a noteworthy article. What gives you the right to attack his character and say that he is not assuming good faith on the part of others while you conveniently ignoring comments from others who have done the same thing, including Simon? Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * The suggestion to merge this speech article into the relevant article that covers the health care bill his speech addresses is not a partisan attack, it is in keeping with how other such speeches are handled. Googlemeister (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, we have no articles about anything that happened before the web browser became available. Prior to the internet, all human affairs were handled through oral history, which are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Honestly! It speaks volumes, by the way, that the expressly-stated premise of your position is that application of standard Wikipedia policy criteria to this article is "attack[ing] the current President," as user:Googlemeister notes above, and the unstated assumption is that those who are !voting to delete voted against Obama last year (and are Republicans). You also mean "discrete" not "discreet." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Simon, your first two sentences are straw men arguments, and dickish at that. Once again, we're going to dance the dance of deletionism vs. inclusionism on this page. According to virtually all sources, the speech was historic.  The speech included an unprecedented also-dickish move by a Republican congressman that received international headlines.  For those citing WP:RECENTISM, keep in mind it's an essay, not a guideline.  Wikipedia's strength relies in that it's WP:NOT.  What are we... economizing on kilobytes? Is Wikimedia going to run out of space?  Googlemeister, it's pure fallacy to point out that Bush's joint-session speech doesn't have a page because you're assuming it shouldn't have a page.  The absence of such a page does not necessarily mean that was intended but rather a consequence of workflow that tends to favor current events.  In short, notability for this event has been demonstrated by an avalanche of mainstream WP:RS's, a "historic" speech coupled with an "unprecedented" (Hoyer's words) outburst by a sitting congressman to a president, so what's the harm in including it? Finally, Simon, generally pointing out the spelling mistakes of others tends to cast the corrector in a negative light.  You know what Fudoki meant... this isn't a grammar class. --kizzle (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Simon, you are one of the last people to talk about assuming good faith when I can give several examples where you have done the exact opposite. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Keep The speech received significant coverage from news sources outside the U.S. Even State of the Unions don't receive this much attention which shows the speech has significant notability. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This may well turn out to be an historic moment/event (US is poised for possible major health care reform plus first-ever heckling during this type an event plus first black president being heckled by a white congressman from the south). It would be excellent to have as objective a record as possible of the contemporary understanding of what transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.180.134 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep without Prejudice This content may very well turn out to be better included elsewhere and we do not want to bind the hands of future editors who may want to better organize it. As it is now, it is a handy placeholder for the vast excited energies which surround this topic.Yeago (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge One idiot's outburst made it notable. Kudos to him.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. A single speech by a public figure is non-notable. Moreover, it is not like Joe Wilson pulled a Michael Richards. rock8591 10:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep The speech is gaining a lot of media coverage, actually came across the page via GoogleNews. Pahari Sahib  11:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Expand - Nowhere does it say in the US Constitution that an address to congress has to be a State Of The Union nor does it say that the SOTU has to occurr in January or February, but rather "from time to time." That Barack Obama makes many speeches does not distract from the gravity of this speech and the international media coverage it has received. This is presently the 9th speech in his template in a span of 5 years. That is hardly a lot. I am not even a citisen or resident of the United States and this speech was carried live on locally available tv channels. The matter of heckling is noteable in itself though not substantial enough to make it the featured subject of the article. I would like to see more coverage of the official Republian response that was shown immediately following the speech. From what i recall of watching it there were a lot of directly conflicting claims made and citing of the same or very similar sources for such claims between Barack and Dr Boustany. That the arguements to retain the article, in varying manners, are greater than the size of the article itself shows that a lot of users disagree with the proposed deletion and are spending their time fighting for the article's survival rather than working on the article. That is a shame. I myself nearly started the article while watching the speech because the notability was going to be well established within 30 minutes of it's end as the global media began to report on it's unique aspects and proposals. However, an ill pet drew my focus away.jh0367 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per various reasons given above - this is a pretty big deal. I'd say more, but others have covered the same ground far more eloquently. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - THIS IS IMPORTANT as it is addressing the joint session by the president. It is more important because it is the first "non-white" President of the USA. IT is important because it is the first time in 60 years that there was such an outburst, especially from a Senator. It is important because the President did not over-react to the outburst and the next day accepted an apology from the soon-to-be Ex Senator. Wiki is one of the truest forms of DEMOCRACY. I will continue to monitor the site to make sure it is more fact than politics but so far I think it is just about right. I think it is important to remember that young people in school go to WIKI for information and we need to try and make articles as factual and balanced as possible. There is room for even more, especially with the response from the Republican opposition. It would be nice if we had the video of the speech entered in some way, preferably in the White House Media where it can't be tampered with as in You Tube. Deborah J. Boyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.136.171 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) He wasn't a Senator. (2) Wikipedia not only is not "one of the truest forms of DEMOCRACY" (or even just plain-old democracy), it isn't a democracy at all. (3) Why is it that this President's allies seem incapable of defending him without supposing race has any relevance? This was the umpteenth speech (and second speech to Cognress) this year by this President. That one uncouth Representative doesn't make it notable. That the President is black doesn't make the speech notable. We will be able to see in eight, twelve months or so whether the speech is notable. For now, delete or merge is the right approach. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Cited. Extensively covered by international media.  Notable.  —Sladen (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a Major Presidential address on a single subject of immense, decades-long political import and controversy in the United States. The speech, and this Wikipedia article, will be cited in many articles and reports in the years to come.


 * Keep – maybe not as much if Wilson didn't make that outburst. Personally I think the level of recentism is a bit high around here, but merging to a list of his speeches to the Joint session of Congress may be a viable option in the future. MuZemike 03:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Historic moment because of health care and that liar guy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even nominator writes: "not notable enough for a discrete article", i.e. merge. -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Only the 16th presidential speech to a joint session of Congress, not counting State of the Union addresses. It would be notable even without the Wilson outburst, as it addresses a long-standing debate in the United States. Blueboy96 05:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All presidential speeches should be treated the same and kept as the New Beginning article, the Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009, Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009 and A More Perfect Union (speech). A policy should be made clear, all presidential speeches are worthy of an article unless they are not reported or poorly reported.  This should settle it.  President of Chicago (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * New policy I support this and all presidential speeches to be automatically notable if reported in multiple sources. However, this particular speech is just moderate in notability compared to all speeches so if automatic notability is rejected then this speech will either barely meet the new notability standard or just barely miss it.  However, it will be the cutoff. President of Chicago (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Notable enough, but doesn't need an article for it own. Pmlineditor    Talk  12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very notable and historic speech. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Notable enough for a section in an article about his presidency, but it is ridiculous to give every speech Obama gives its own article. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edward Lalone and because it was an historic speech which may well have been the turning point in the debate over health care in the United States.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say the matter discussed upon in the speech was very important and highly notable. Scythian1 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Speech has made no impact, says George Stephanopoulos. So much for all those keep votes insisting prematurely that the speech was "historic" and so forth. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "On Wednesday night, Barack Obama delivered the finest speech of his presidency." - David Brooks, NY Times
 * "I've been here for a decade and a half, it's the best speech I've ever heard to a Joint Session. It had a sense of history but a focus about moving forward." - Sherrod Brown.
 * It's not the most historic speech of the century, but it's historic enough to have it's own article. Your point is odd: it's like saying "Well why do we need an article on Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I have a Dream' speech when it didn't solve racism?" --kizzle (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just another Obama speech. One among dozens if not hundreds. Giving speeches and press conferences is practically all the man has done for three years. Why is this one special? Merely because he gave it before Congress? No one has yet offered any reason why that makes it notable, just conclusory suggestions that it must be. The fact that David Brooks - who, as regular News Hour viewers know, has been fawning over Obama for years - dribbled over the speech doesn't make it historic. Brown's observation that it was (in his opinion, and keep in mind which party he belongs to) the best speech to a joint session in fifteen years sets the bar pretty low, too. What we're left with is a whole bunch of speculation, assumption, recentism, and fancruft. We will know in due time whether this merits an article of its own; until then, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:The world will not end tomorrow ("achieving notability is still usually a process, rarely an event"), merge, delete, redirect. And then let's get rid of the non-notable Bush SOTUs, too, to make clear that this has nothing to do with partisanship. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, as we clearly represent opposite ends of the spectrum on inclusionism vs. deletionism. Wikipedia is not paper.  Why do we feel the need to remove pages on speeches?  For Christ's sake, we have articles detailing every single Pokemon character, why can't we have pages on notable speeches made by the leader of the free world?  There is no consequence besides a few kilobytes extra here and there, and if people don't want to click on the link to the page, they very well don't have to.  This wasn't the most notable speech in the world, but IMHO it still meets notability to the point where it deserves an article regardless of George Stephanopoulos's assertion that the speech hasn't changed poll results.  Should we delete Ich bin ein Berliner because Kennedy failed to bring the wall down himself? --kizzle (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FTR, I would take the Pokemon point the other way around: we shouldn't have articles on every speech made by the leader of the free world, so a fortiori we shouldn't have articles on every Pokemon character. I would support our having a single article on Pokemon and performing a delete & redirect on every other in-universe article about Pokemon. Unfortunately, that ship has probably sailed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I can't believe there's an actual essay.  Though I still disagree with you, I abandon my argument in favor of yours due to the sheer awesomeness of that link in the context of the debate.  Bravo, sir.  Bravo. :) --kizzle (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - It is notable that a it is a "combative" and "forceful" speech at a defining time for No Drama Obama. The August recess has been viewed by "most" news outlets as damaging to Obama's healthcare refom - his masterpiece. Presidents have tried and failed. Previous healthcare reforms have crashed and burned. The speech should appear somewhere. Future users of Wikipedia would want to know about this speech when retracing the footsteps of Obama's healthcare reform. I know I would. The heckler should go down in history as a footnote. riversandlakes (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major speech on major subject and associated with a public scandal. Abyssal (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Time to close as snow keep. With this running 2:1 and well over +20 net for an unconditional keep, the only reason not to close this early is to give people a chance to chime in with more reasons to keep or not keep. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:27, 15 September 2009 (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.