Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States who knew a language other than English


 * 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. Big Dom  18:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States who knew a language other than English

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete per WP:TRIVIA. This is a completely trivial list based on perceived language skills. How is "knowing" a language other than English a defining characteristic? Why not make a list of Presidents who did not enjoy spinach or ate steak on Sunday? TM 15:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's an interesting article with relevant biographical information about the presidents.  There is also List of Prime Ministers of Canada by languages spoken.  Feel free to make those lists of presidents who did not enjoy spinach or ate steak on Sunday. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:INTERESTING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to read why those arguments are not helpful.--TM 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is a very clear reason for List of Prime Ministers of Canada by languages spoken, as the language issue in Canada is one of the defining features of the country which has been studied extensively under its various aspects. In the case of US presidents, it appears that this list is there only for trivial reasons. I'll have to take a closer look at the sources first before deciding on a !vote.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ...because obviously a president's dietary quirks are no less relevant to the job of being head of state than their linguistic ability? Is that really what the nom is asserting?  Keep as relevant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced list.  We wouldn't necessarily expect a book to be published dedicated solely to Presidents and Foreign Languages, but it's a common part of political commentary and reporting to note such an ability, or lack thereof and to make comparisons across the history of the office (e.g.,  ("The White House has a time-honored tradition of multilingualism...")).  postdlf (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Michelle Obama hates beets, but George H.W. Bush banned broccoli Los Angeles Times, August 2010. High profile American politicians suffer from a saturation of commentary on everything from languages to dietary habits. We need to ask whether it is a defining characteristic. Does the fact that Barack Obama supposedly speaks 'conversational' Indonesian or that Bush Jr. supposedly speaks some level of Spanish define anything about them? It is pure trivia.--TM 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We need not ask whether it is "defining", as NO Wikipedia policy has this listed as an inclusion criteria, not to mention that it is highly subjective; the article you provide is not similar at all to the sources that discuss linguistic ability throughout time. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - still neutral on the issue. If kept, I think it should be renamed as the title is convoluted to say the least, and the format is not quite that of a stand-alone list. US presidents proficiency in foreign languages might be more appropriate as a title.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't view this list as trivia. Some of the sources cited specifically compare the language abilities of presidents or presidential candidates, and language ability is concievably relevant to the job of president. I know of no policy which requires lists to classify by "defining characteristic", a phrase which is only used to discuss categories, and if we did require such a thing we would probably have to delete clearly encyclopedic things like List of countries with nuclear weapons. WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline for trivia sections and isn't relevant to the question of whether this article should exist. Hut 8.5 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Non-trivial list based on a characteristic that has been commented upon many, many times throughout the entire history of the country. There have been issues as to how to name it, but that is irrelevant to an AfD and can be handled on the talk page. Further, WP:LISTN states that lists are considered non-trivial and notable if their has been commentary on such a group. That NYT article provided above, and many others, discuss the concept of Presidential linguistic abilities throughout time and how they affected politics, policy, and relations, and cannot be considered as similar to the "broccoli" article, which just talks of two people rather than "Presidents" in general. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - What do you call a person who speaks one language? An American.  But seriously, folks ... the languages a President can speak has been a campaign issue since Martin van Buren, raised speaking Dutch, learned English as a second language.  Presidents nowadays are expected to speak Spanish and at least one other foreign language. Dubya's poor language skills in English and his relatively good skills in Spanish was a political football. This is not merely an interesting list, but a useful article for our core readership - high school and college students who need to learn more American history.  I understand why the nom see this as trivial, but this is an odd list that should be kept. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that it's relevant, but in this political climate I doubt that Spanish speaking skills are encouraged in a candidate, let alone expected. :)--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but do away with that awkward title. How about List of multilingual Presidents of the United States? Pburka (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The name has switched numerous times since I first created it, but I think that this may be the best suggested title thus far. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, even though its name is somewhat weird, it is not a trivial article, and also it does not talks with a trivia way. Eduemoni↑talk↓  21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but cleanup. I think the article should be converted to proseline because at first glance it does look like trivia. And the title of the article is terrible, btw.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 23:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not at all persuaded by the nominator's argument that this is trivia. Postdif's discussion of the New York Times article and Bearian's analysis of the historical significance of the topic are especially persuasive. I commend the original author for developing a well-referenced article on a notable topic.  Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:TRIVIA does not mean what the nominator seems to think it means. It is a style guideline which counsels against sections in articles containing unrelated miscellania.  This article is nothing of the kind because it is an article not a section of some larger article and it has a coherent topic rather than being miscellaneous.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Interesting, well sourced. Maybe improve the title.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - name could probably be improved, but it's a well sourced and encyclopedic list. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - bilingual presidents are much more notable in the US than in, say, Belgium...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 April 2011 (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.