Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident


 * 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. Mango juice talk 04:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush Scotland bicycle accident
This event is not notable enough for a separate article. In fact, it probably isn't notable at all as the publicity from it lasted for about a week. At most, it might get a mention in a trivia section on GWB's page (much like his father's vomit episode in Japan has on GHWB's page), but again, I don't think the bike accident is worthy of any mention. Cjosefy 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - a clear case of "recentitis". No one is going to care about this next month, much less for posterity. I don't even think this worth noting on the GWB trivia section. 205.157.110.11 05:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about a smerge with Dick Cheney hunting accident, since this article points to the connection between the two events? It can be an aftermath section (as opposed to a trivia section somewhere else- no article should have a trivia section). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. The Cheney incident is slighty more notable because he shot someone, but it still doesn't need a huge article with 61 sources (as it is now).  I would like to see this NN minutia purged from Wikipedia.  Plus, the connection drawn between the two articles is VERY weak and is probably POV. Cjosefy 07:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete completely, who cares. Gazpacho 08:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If this was about some guy called Alexander McTavish falling off his bike it would be nn. It's just as nn when it's about Bush falling off his.  Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Come on, we are not going to cover every freak accident happened to Bush nor any of his health problms unless it is really serious or captured the public imagination --Ageo020 11:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, anon205, Ageo. Paddles TC 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need an encyclopedia article for every hiccup by every world leader. Gerald ford fell several times, even leading to regular skits about the falls by Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live. That might be a better candidate. Is there an article for John Kennedy's sore back? Eisenhower's heart attack? If so there should not be. There would not in a real encyclopedia. If the episode is of some llight significance, add a sentence to the GE Bush article.Edison 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the article's creator you can consider me slightly biased, but it did trigger two cycles of newscoverage, effectively dominating the coverage of the G8 summit the first time, and then another flurry when the police report came out. Notability does not come and go, if Bush's hiccups or Gerald Ford's falls got 284,000 google hits, then we should probably have an article about them as well. What about merging this into an article for all of Bush's bicycle accidents&mdash;he's had nearly a dozen, all of which get some news coverage, although this is probably the most notable, save the one at his ranch during the Sheehan thing. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if Google was around back during the Ford administration, then this would be a valid argument. He is the CURRENT President, so it is no surpise that it gets a lot of hits.  Do you honestly think this will be remembered in 20 years?  Can you honestly say notability doesn't come in go (especially when you use Google as the measure)? Cjosefy 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I can honestly say that for the purposes of WP, notability does not come and go. It's a shame that there was net less media back during the Ford Administration, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that we should censor present events in proportion to the increase in media coverage from notable and verifiable sources. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if there was Google back during Fords admin, then you'd want an article on him being clumsy? This is ridiculous.  We don't need a detailed account of every tiny thing the President does.  You can find many news articles on every single daily activity of the President.  Do we need articles for every banquet he attends, speech he gives, or jog he takes?  Maybe we do because there is no shortage or verifiable sources that report on these things.  Cjosefy 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if another topic had as many references and citations as this one, there would be no question. Sparsefarce 18:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone's challenging the accuracy. Gazpacho 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about the mass media coverage.  Sparsefarce 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the current online age, if the President of the United States does ANYTHING, you'll be able to find 1000s of reputable sources from the 1000s of legitimate newspapers, tv stations, etc. online. Cjosefy 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're just wrong. Things only get picked up by multiple media sources when they are notable. What's more, this had two distinct periods of coverage. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I look forward to your article on when he choked on a pretzel, or perhaps the medical results from his colonoscopy.  It seems naive to think that only notable events get picked up by multiple news sources.  Do we want articles on every flash in the pan news story?  Surely you admit that every week plenty of stories get picked up all over the country, and the world that are big for a week and then go away.  I doubt that in 5 years you'll be able to find your vaulted 240,000 hits. Cjosefy 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per savidanBakaman Bakatalk 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Savidan. Any time a major world leader directly inflicts severe bodily harm on someone else, I think it's pretty notable. Nice referencing as well, per Sparcefarce. Irongargoyle 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Directly inflicts severe bodily harm"? Did you read the article? Cjosefy 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Sparsefarce and Savidan, though I do somewhat favor a merge into an article about all of Bush's bicycling accidents.  Srose  (talk)  23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The incident is probably mildly notable, but at Wikinews and not in an encyclopedia. Sandstein 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Savidan. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong utter delete O puhlease! Is this an encyclopaedia or are we going into Ripley's Believe it or not territory. Utterly unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a blog, a news service or anything like that. It is an encyclopaedia where we should have encyclopaedic articles covering important people, history, art, science etc. Not someone bicycle accident!--Kalsermar 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- rubbish, complete and utter. Astrotrain 23:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This should go into the GWB article or possibly into a 'GWB accidents' article. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  23:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Savidan, although I would also be happy to see this material merged into one article covering all of his bicycle-related incidents. --Mais oui! 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into George W Bush DXRAW 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into George W Bush. This information is a funny incident, and a story about it is not unwarranted. Obviously, not the most important incident with regards to George Bush, however a noteworthy story that is worthy of retention under the grounds of trivia. Nlsanand 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Has it occured to anyone that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia? Funny stories and trivia don't belong here.Kalsermar 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above reasons. Vegaswikian 18:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bush accidents and mishaps (and Iraq) will be the main things he will be remembered for Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per cjosefly Intellectualprop2002 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Purely of ephemeral interest.--Runcorn 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dekimasu 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into George W Bush if it is needed there.--Konstable 00:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not require a separate article. - David Oberst 02:28, 27 August 2006 (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.