Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Cheney's health


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Dick Cheney&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete. Fork from Dick Cheney with nothing more than an excess amount of detail. Just because all of this was reported in the news doesn't mean it merit's an article (i.e., WP:NOTNEWS. Cheney's health should be summarized in the main article, and nothing more. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is already discussed in some detail in Dick Cheney. You could make a case for Franklin D. Roosevelt's health and how it affected his political career, but a VP? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If this material is worth keeping then it belongs in Dick Cheney. There is no good reason for segregating it into a separate article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a merge vote to me unless the material is garbage. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sources clearly show how notable this issue was, and remains. The time periods of sources shows it was not just a one-shot in the news.  He's had several heart attacks over decades.  He was VP for eight years.  I am a bit concerned about the reliability of sources - IMHO, Fox News is not reliable - but there seems to be enough good sources to make a potentially good article. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs work but serves a purpose The title sounds like a joke but could be worse if entitled "Dick Cheney, just back from a heart attack". Most old politicians get sick but this man has been the butt of jokes for years and also the source of much discussion.  The article seems like a keep as long as it is a sub-article written in good faith with no OR and no smearing and with references.  President Roosevelt is also a candidate for an article.  President Nixon is not as he was not too sick.  Cheney's new heart pump is a trivial bit of news (not trivial for his health, a heart pump is a very serious set back) but could be a part of a sub article.  There are sub-articles about other major peripheral topics, like the presidential campaign, Bagram Air Base bombing when he was there, etc. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - any relevant details should be summarized in Dick Cheney. It's not like his health problems are notably unusual for an elderly person, and they aren't affecting the United States government in any way, since he's a former leader, and a VP at that. First Light (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Shows originality. Someone could do a similar article on JFK or FDR, who had serious health problems too. As you know, Cheney's health is often in the news.Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP is not news, and to the extent this is encyclopedic, it belongs in the main article on Cheney. Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Too much information for the Dick Cheney article. Spevw (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into main article. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Trying to make it clear instead of a long explanation. Sorry. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet requirements for Notability in Wikipedia. Has not received attention from the world at large, does not have enduring notability. See also: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Infinitjest (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It meets all the GNG bullet points. It has received attention from non-US sources.  Just search the BBC. MVOO (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unnecessary detail overkill! Agree with Ohnoitsjamie. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge' prose (not the list) from "Health", "Heart Attack History" and maybe the "Back problems" to Dick Cheney. Parse those sections as necessary to avoid undue weight within the Cheney article. The rest is trivial (e.g., high cholesterol) or irrelevant to Cheney (e.g., Vice-President succession, which doesn't even mention Cheney, and for good reason, since he wasn't replaced due to health reasons) or just irrelevant (e.g., his health was the butt of comedian jokes? No different than any politician). Rlendog (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment After consultation, the AFD will continue. Hopefully a consensus can be achieved.RN 04:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork about a living person. We do not need articles about the health problems of various individuals, and this  needs to be nipped in the bud lest it become a trend. Courcelles (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unnecessary fork. Without wishing to disrespect the editors who have put their time into it, half the article is basically a copy of the content at Dick Cheney and the other half is is padding and unnecessary detail on the conditions he suffers from. None of his health problems are notable in their own right and, if merged to Cheney's biography, would be seriously undue weight. I think it speaks volumes that not other POTUS or VPOTUS has an article dedicated to their health and there are several, FDR springs immediately to mind, whose health was arguably far more notable than Cheney's. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or possibly merge if it's felt that some of the unique content is worth retaining. Not really worthy of a separate article under WP:CFORK as most of it's duplication and the remainder appears to be non-notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There would be no reason to have a Joe Biden's Health article because it is not an issue. However, there is continual coverage on Dick Cheney's health. It meets WP:GNG because it there is significant coverage year after year, the coverage is reliable, the sources are ironclad like CNN, it is independent of the coverage (the sources of his heart attack is not dickcheney.com).  Just because the article is not perfectly written does not mean it gets deleted.  Otherwise 70% of Wikipedia gets deleted.  Also hating Cheney and wanting him dead or deleted does not mean that the article is deleted.  MVOO (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per HJ Mitchell and Ohnoitsjamie. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete needs to be a part of Dick Cheney not a forked page. If theres anything of value merge it and delete. — raeky  T  00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no more a need for this article than there was for Michele Obama's arms. Whatever needs to be said can be said in the Dick Cheney article.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on timing of this matter This was originally closed as no consensus. Then the admin had off-wiki consultation (he admits to consultation) and a flood of delete votes accompanied his re-opening of it.  Two people have claimed re-opening is permitted but none have pointed the policy allowing it after I asked.  Further nobody has refuted the fact that the article meets all bullet points of WP:GNG.  AFD is not a vote according to the rules.  GNG prevails. MVOO (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary fork. Merge anything notable back to Dick Cheney if not already covered there.  Begoon  talk  00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Food and water is necessary, nothing more. All sub-articles are forks, if you are cynical. MVOO (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete wikipedia is not a news aggregator. As First Light points out, health problems after retiring are not relevant. To justify this separate article you would need good secondary sources explaining how Cheney's health is such an important issue. And by "good" I mean books or good review articles in journals. It's bad to base an article completely on sparse newspaper articles that are unrelated to each other, without secondary sources that link them together. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (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.