Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical rankings of United States Presidents


 * 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 (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. Chetblong T C 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical rankings of United States Presidents

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is just a summation of subjective viewpoints. Subjective rankings have no place in an encyclopedia. The tables are original research because they create their own index by combining multiple different sources. This is clearly an invalid way of extrapolating new data. It is evident that after reading the article that the subject itself is DEPENDENT on POV due to the highly different ratings by different people. This article should really be titled 'Opinion Polling of How Different Groups of People Like US Presidents'. This is plainly not scientific.


 * Keep Well referenced, and obviously the subjects are all notable. Avruch talk 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. At Wikipedia not truth, not like, young Jedi, but verifiability and good cites are they the Rules, says Yoda.  May the Force be with you. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk)
 * Delete Obviously, I nominated this article for deletion.  The article's topic is not encyclopedic.  The tables of rankings are original research.  The text is original research in that it contains a lot of analysis of the aggregated data in the tables.  Two thirds of the linked sources are broken and not verifiable.  Bbrown8370 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a huge stretch to look at this as original research. Your argument is that they averaged the rankings.  All of the original rankings are there, though, so...yeah. matt91486 (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - obviously notable and well-referenced.-- S    TX   04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep expected to find it nn but it's a well-sourced article on a common occurrence of obvious interest. JJL (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs better citations, but is actually a pretty good article. It may be appropriate to remove uncited material, but deletion would be overkill. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ranking the presidents is a parlor game that receives periodic news coverage, thus notable. Obviously a CNN online poll would not be something necessary for us to cover, but scholarly surveys of historians certainly are. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see where the nominator is coming from, but he's a bit off.  This is not someone on their own ranking the Presidents.  This article is about the many, many polls and surveys that are done by historians to rank them...and has been reported on many times.  The first would be clear OR and not allowable.  The second warrants inclusion.  This article is the second.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. 24.19.31.164 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (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.