Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy


 * 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   speedy keep as a disruptive nomination. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The only notable and verifiable piece of information here is George W. Bush's 1976 DWI conviction and his self description of his alcohol use before age 40 as abuse. This does not deserve its own article. The rest of the entry is non-notable speculation from liberal bloggers or columnists that George W. Bush has either abused drugs or alcohol after age 40. Several claims in this entry are dubious and clearly come from sources that are speculative. Other claims clearly attempt to insinuate substance abuse when source does not explicitly verify this, in violation of WP:SYN. Page was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-G10 as an attack page that had no hope of salvation. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This page was created as a daughter article to the main George W. Bush bio to accommodate all the facts about this subject, in greater detail than the main bio.  The nominator's description of the article is inaccurate.  With regard to alcohol, the article describes his arrest for disorderly conduct as well as the DWI incident.  It also goes into more detail about his troubles with alcohol and about his decision to stop drinking (including Billy Graham's part in that decision).  The article also includes information about other drugs.  Contrary to the nominator's assertion, the article is not "non-notable speculation from liberal bloggers or columnists"; it includes information from his authorized biography, from a family friend, and from Air Force records. JamesMLane t c 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Analysis of information from Air Force records is original research.ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. Proliferation is non-encyclopedic. Knobbly (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to George W. Bush, but, to make sure the article isn't too bloated, omit some of the lesser, finer details. Cheers.  I 'mperator 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep, but don't delete. Hairhorn (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lest we soon forget. Definitely notable as the subject of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no question about it, the subject is notable and reliable sources are available. Any unreferenced allegation should be remove per WP:BLP but this is far from an attack page. -- J mundo 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is extremely notable and was well covered in the mainstream press at the time.  His drug use seems to have been deleted from the article; this needs to be reincluded as well, again from reliable sources that have discussed the matter.  This should be mentioned in the main bio page but there really is enough here for a separate article. csloat (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:BLP and WP:GRAPEVINE, poorly self-published sources (WP:SPS) speculating about George W. Bush's potential drug use would be akin to creating an article called Barack Obama substance abuse controversy and populating the article with quotes from Larry Sinclair. As the original nominator, I am leaning merge or keep now (more keep since there is a lot of information here already). ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment This citation from the article disproves, definitely for the purposes of WP:BLP, poorly sourced allegations of drug abuse. Link ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's silly; we're not here to "prove" or "disprove" allegations such as this. What your cite "proves" is that allegations of George Bush's drug abuse were notable enough of an issue to be covered by the NYT.  Certainly we can include quotes or references to that article, and others like it, but to censor mention of this based on the claim that the NYT "disproves" it (by a quote from a party buddy suggesting that Bush really wasn't all that wild-and-crazy) is ridiculous. csloat (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The new user who began this AfD decided to "close" his own AfD less than a day after its creation.  He moved the article to a new title, then made it a redirect, and removed most of the information from it, including quite a bit that was properly encyclopedic.  I've requested admin help in undoing the resulting mess.  In the meantime, the article under discussion, in its last good version before these unilateral changes, can be seen here. JamesMLane t c 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All undone now, the AfD can proceed as normal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have restored the article to the original title. Keith D (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Having this as a separate article places undue weight on Mr. Bush's admitted use of alcohol and cocaine. Moreover, the title itself is a problem - there's no controversy over his use of alcohol and cocaine (he admitted it), so the article title is non-neutral. Regardless of any problem's with the nominator's style of editing, his suggestion to merge to Early life of George W. Bush is a good one. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article was originally created for exactly the opposite reason.  Some editors felt that having this much information as part of a bio of Bush would give too much weight to this aspect of his life, an objection that would probably apply even if it were merged into the "Early life" article rather than the main bio.  (Of course, given that some of the material relates to his later life, "Early life" isn't a good merge target anyway.)  Other editors felt that leaving only a passing mention in the bio article, and expunging the more detailed information entirely, was a disservice to our readers, because it involved pointlessly losing some data that met Wikipedia's standards.  The daughter article was the way to keep all the information available without giving rise to complaints that it took up an inordinate share of the space in the bio article.  As for cocaine, he sort of hinted at admitting it, but didn't come right out and admit it.  A title that assumed as fact that he used cocaine would be POV. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The burden of proof rests with those wishing to add new material. The material of this artcile could easily be summarised and mereged with the parent article.  Furthermore this article being about a living persons runs the rist of not having a NPOV and is contrary to this Wiki principle: "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source" (WP:GRAPEVINE)  Besides which biographies of living people should use reliable third party information and not delve into speculation. (WP:WELLKNOWN)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knobbly (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable controversy about a prominent public figure. Allegations of drug use should be sourced and limited to reliable sources, yes, but deletion of the article would be taking WP:BLP too far. John Callender (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Callender. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for sure. At least some of this material is worthwhile and properly sourced, and the defenders of W will never consent to allowing it back into the main article, so the existence of this article is a necessary compromise.  "Thou shalt never speak ill of my favorite politician" is a ludicrous position to take, especially on Wikipedia. Paul (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A sufficiently major issue, though of course care should be taken in sourcing. DGG (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge that he had to give up drinking is important part of his life story and a number of biographers have persuasively made the claim that his success with alcohol effected his world view, self belief, etc... positively. I have no doubt that he used drugs when he was younger (enough decent sources have vouched for that). The long and short? This can easily be distilled to two relevant, well-cited paragraphs that would slot well into his biography. This is over long and an uneeded fork (i find the length concerns unpersuasive because i believe the meat here is easily distilled to about 100 words).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep though 'controversy' is really not the right word and anything unverifiable should definitely be removed. Peter Grey (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Merging is possible as well, but I assume the split was made to avoid it overwhelming the main article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - i agree with User:Bali ultimate and User:Peter Grey. this could easily be condensed and merged, but if the vote is to keep, the word 'controversy' should be changed.  if wikipedia is ever to become a legitimate scholarly tool, all the 'controversy' pages need to be deleted.  and after rereading this article, the only passages that allude to controversy are the ones that suggest Bush actually passed out drunk rather than choked on a pretzel, and that Bush probably stopped flying because of future mandatory drug tests.  and both sources for these claims read more like gossip columns.  all of this should be cleaned up and merged into main biography page. Anthonymendoza (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The following passage from the article isn't gossip; it's cited to an AP story and The New York Times:
 * "In the taped recording of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.”[15] When Wead reminded Bush of his earlier public denial of using cocaine, Bush replied, 'I haven't denied anything.'[16]"
 * So this information is well-sourced and is certainly of interest, as an unusual statement for a U.S. politician to make, but an attempt to merge it will surely meet with resistance from people who scream "undue weight". This is only one example; there's a fair amount of well-sourced information in this daughter article that some readers might want but that some editors will fight to keep out of the main bio.  That's why there's a daughter article, per Summary style.  If this AfD is closed as "merge", I trust that you and all the other merge supporters will join me in making sure that the information is indeed merged as opposed to being suppressed. JamesMLane t c 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, i think that passage belongs in the main biography page. it's equivalent to this passage from Bill Clinton:
 * In later life he admitted to smoking cannabis at the university, but claimed that he "never inhaled".[15][16]
 * what do you make of the two specific passages i cited above? clearly those do not belong, right?Anthonymendoza (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your specific examples. The "pretzel" incident and the Guard testing information are sourced to a British cabinet officer and a prominent mainstream journalist, respectively. They're properly encyclopedic.  On the other hand, I'm not arguing that every word of the article is sacrosanct.  The three episodes mentioned at the end of the alcohol section -- G8 summit, Napolitano lunch, APEC summit -- are borderline at best.


 * What's relevant to this AfD, though, is that even the material that would survive an excessively intense pruning would still be too much to merge. I see your point about including the Wead passage in the main bio, but I'm confident that it would take a Herculean effort by several editors to get it there. Furthermore, even if that succeeded, there's a lot of other information -- detail about Bush's problems with alcohol, Billy Graham's role in the event, etc. -- that simply wouldn't fit in the main article without overburdening it or drawing cries of "undue weight". As with any President of the United States, there's simply too much else that has to be covered. It's not uncommon to have multiple daughter articles even as to unsuccessful recent presidential candidates (e.g., John Kerry and John McCain). Heck, even Sarah Palin has multiple daughter articles.  For someone who actually spent eight years as President, the amount of valid material that can be considered for inclusion in the main article is far greater.  The result is that a lot of significant and interesting information must be relegated to daughter articles. JamesMLane t c 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Heck, even Sarah Palin has multiple daughter articles." Is one of them pregnant? ;P csloat (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems contrary to WP:BLP, being too speculative and defamatory. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep especially since the nom has went and created POV fork Barack Obama substance abuse controversy (no doubt to make a POINT). - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 03:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nomination is in bad faith, as evidenced by his subsequent article creation. Further, this article has about two dozen citations from reliable sources, and doesn't present the information in a ridiculous, inflammatory style. Looks fairly well kept within the leash of BLP. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 24 May 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.