Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter  (gossip)  17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This most certainly violates WP:BLP. Much of the article reads as a tabloid, with various items being sourced to allegations published in reliable sources and in fringe books. One section was entirely unsourced when I discovered the article, and it was unsourced for at least a year. While President Bush has admitted that he is a recovering alcoholic, this most certainly does not deserve its own separate article just to cover the events that led up to his decision to give up alcohol. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as this page runs contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid journalism and scandal mongering. Articles and content about living people are expected to meet higher standards, as they may be construed as libelous. This page does not have encyclopedic value and it only contains speculations and allegations of alcohol abuse, the substance of which has been captured in the biography page. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This article only contains speculation and no real source for alcoholism. Maybe some words could be added to the Bush article but this issue is not notable enough for an own one. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some people seem to want to adopt a new version of BLP that would say: "When a politician or other controversial figure is criticized, and the criticism receives significant media coverage, Wikipedia is nevertheless not allowed to include any mention of the criticism, even a factual report of what is said and by whom, unless Wikipedia editors in their genius conclude that the criticism is well founded and backed by sources that would pass the WP:RS test."  That's not our policy and most definitely should not be.  Reliable sourcing here consists of documenting that the criticism has been made.  If this is deleted, let's delete John Kerry military service controversy, which reports on criticisms that were directly contradicted by official records and by some of the critics' own prior statements. JamesMLane t c 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. benzband  ( talk ) 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC) :

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable controversy regarding an important historical figure. Edison (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - has everyone read the first nomination? (speedy keep as a disruptive nomination) ~ benzband  ( talk ) 08:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, there was a substance abuse controversy when it was revealed in the 2000 election campaign that he had been convicted of DUI. The article is well sourced and would have undue weight if fully merged into his main biography. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - deletion would amount to a wholesale change in WP policy. The article is well-sourced with reliable sources, and the controversy received significant media coverage -- tabloid or no -- as well it should have given that it concerned an individual who was campaigning for and became the President of the U.S. Jhw57 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic regarding a highly prominent individual that received significant coverage in reliable sources, extensively & reliably sourced.--JayJasper (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (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.