Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. presidential faux-pas, gaffes, and unfortunate incidents


 * 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. Consensus here is that the article falls under WP:IINFO. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

List of U.S. presidential faux-pas, gaffes, and unfortunate incidents
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is a dumping ground for whatever news articles made the paper. All significant events have been moved to their own article, and the rest is useless trivia. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete completely subjective unencyclopaedic topic. candidate for WP:FREAKY. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed a couple of unsourced paragraphs about George H. W. Bush per WP:BLP. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you really delete the Bush puke story? That's well documented, one of the most hilarious moments of his presidency. Hairhorn (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's documented by all means feel free to restore it (not that the article looks set to survive much longer anyway). In other contexts I might have discussed first, but policy is pretty clear on this. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Q : And what exactly are the encyclopedic criteria for inclusion? The topic is inherently subjective unless you confine members to incidents in which many sources characterize the event with these words. Trying to spend your wait out of bankruptcy seems on the order of consulting a national astrologer but presumably your belief system changes the meaning of "gaffe." Stuff happens. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If "Bush attempted to exit a room in China, but it was locked and so he was unable to leave the room, much to the amusement of the world's press" and "While attempting to enter the Oval Office, Barack Obama mistook a window for the door several feet away" don't fall under WP:IINFO, I don't know what does. — Rankiri (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:TRIVIA. -- RUL3R *flaming 13:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE - it'd be impossible to maintain as well as being complete WP:OR. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: We're neither a forum nor a gossip-magazine. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It would be difficult to make this type of article work under any circumstances, even it were well-written.  I like that it's sourced, but it's pure trivia, something discouraged by Wikipedia.  If gaffes were anything other than entertainment, the NBC show "World's Most Embarrassing Moments" would be hosted by Brian Williams.  Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:IINFO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO and as almost inherently pov. It is times like this that I miss WP:BJAODN.  young  american  (wtf?) 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per both WP:IINFO and, if we were to liberally extend the guidelines for sections to articles, WP:TRIVIA. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for vague inclusion criteria, POV and leaving out Bush drinking. Hairhorn (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep WP:IINFO is currently disputed. It rightly should be for a number of reasons, one is that it is one of the most misued quoted guidelines in deletion debates. There are 4 sections of WP:IINFO:
 * Plot-only description of fictional works
 * Lyrics databases.
 * Excessive listing of statistics
 * News reports. Which one does this article fall under? Many of these arguments are WP:IDONTLIKE arguments. WP:FREAKY is a humorous essay. I agree with User:Mandsford, it is a sourced article, but I feel it should be kept. Ikip (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have read the last sentence: "The above list, like all lists of examples here, is not exhaustive, merely illustrative." — Rankiri (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why editors are currently arguing how this policy is misused:Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not, editors have repeatedly expanded WP:IINFO in Afds to include anything and everything. This list up for deletion is not even remotely close to any of the four examples listed above.
 * In fact, the last sentence was added a mere 8 days ago. Ikip (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But the question here is not what policy should be used in an argumet for/against deleting the article. The question here is: Is this article encyclopedic? Is this list worthy of inclusion? Has any of the items on this list been notable enough to guarantee a mention, but not to have an article of it's own? Most of this have a proper article for their own, either due to notability or controversy. Perhaps a more neutral, stable approach would be to move this article to List of U.S. presidential controversies, remove whatever doesn't fit WP:OR, WP:IINFO and whatever other policy in dispute here. I am actually surprised to see a redlink for that article. -- RUL3R *flaming 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, but frankly, I still think "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" describes the page quite well. If we're going to pay meticulous attention to accepted wording, here's also WP:TRIVIA's "avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information", WP:OR's "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", WP:POV's "each Wikipedia article...must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias", WP:STAND's "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value", and WP:NOTDIR's "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." — Rankiri (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. My point is that a list for presidential controversies in the US might work as an article, and a couple of items from here can be taken. Like the Lewinsky scandal, the Five minutes speech, even the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. Throw in Nixon's Watergate and other scandals (sorry, I am not an American Citizen, I am not completely lectured on their history), and we can have a working article with relevant information. -- RUL3R *flaming 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's an important topic, and obviously notable. Doesn't have anything to do with IINFO.  Could use some work, but what couldn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? How? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As a list of useless trivia, and coatrack for political partisans. Yob  Mod  09:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia lists of non-notable anecdotes do not make the cut.  Collect (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - They may be notable, but not every thing they do is. If any thing caused a impact upon specific events, mention it in the Article about the event. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:IINFO as noted above. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:18, 8 August 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.