Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts


 * 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 no consensus. Well, this is a complicated close. The key concern raised by the nomination is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e the list has no clear inclusion criteria and is a mostly arbitrary assembly of facts. There is also a concern that the list is "trivial" but that's not really a policy or guideline (WP:TRIVIA is but from the discussion it's not clear that it would actually apply). The keep arguments are more numerous but they mostly do not address the delete arguments (with the exception of Andrew Davidson's arguments to keep), rather discussing WP:LISTN which isn't at issue, stating that the topic's problems can be fixed without explaining why or calling the list "Interesting" without explaining how that invalidates the concerns raised by the delete camp. On balance, it doesn't seem like the delete argument clearly prevails over the keep one in terms of number or strength of argument, as there is enough uncertainty about whether the INDISCRIMINATE concern can be resolved w/o deletion. Thus this is a no consensus but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

List of United States presidential firsts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an an indiscriminate collection of information. For example, how does one decide which things to list for George Washington, who was by definition the first President to do absolutely every single thing he did as President. Adams was the "first president to be a Unitarian", but only because the previous president wasn't. Virtually none of the religious "firsts" have any substantial commentary other than by fans of that denomination (possible exception being JFK, whose Catholicism did generate widespread discussion), but JFK as "first president to be assassinated and die on the same day"? How arbitrary is that? What defines "first president to have a son marry in the White House" as a significant first? Why should we include historical inevitabilities like the first president to ride in a motor car, something all would surely have done had the motor car existed? Why choose the number 10 for "first president to have 10 or more biological children"? Why not 7 or 5? What qualifies New York State as significant ("first president to be born in New York State")? First president to predecease his father? Is that significant? One or two of these may be notable in context (e.g. first president to travel abroad while in office, which might well be significant in an article on presidential foreign travel) but for the most part this looks like a list of things where people have a pet topic, have looked for the first president associated with the pet topic, and added it to the article. Guy (help!) 10:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete trivia and indiscriminate, I can see some value in a list of political firsts as being relevant to the position of president but nearly all of this article is trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The test for such a list is not what we editors think about it – see WP:IDLI. No, what matters is WP:LISTN – whether "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".  A quick search soon finds respectable coverage of presidential firsts such as New York Times; Reuters; Saturday Evening Post. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, the test is WP:IINFO (which is core policy). There are no objective criteria for inclusion. Guy (help!) 16:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a core policy; they are listed at WP:COPO and WP:IINFO isn't one of them. In any case, WP:IINFO does not apply.  That policy seeks to exclude raw, undigested bulk data and lists four specific cases: lyrics, software versions, voluminous statistics and summaries of creative works.  The page in question is none of these things nor is it anything like them.  It's a highly focussed and specific list of presidential milestones, each of which is, by definition, unique – milestones like the first black president or the first president to be assassinated.  This information not raw, excessive or indiscriminate.  Such criticisms might be applied to something like a list of presidential diary engagements, which listed just about everything which the presidents have done, but this is nowhere near that.  The list's scope echoes that used by numerous reliable and secondary sources which express themselves in just the same terms and so we're good.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Honestly, I'm surprised it took five and half years for somebody to try and delete this. That being said, many reliable sources (far and above what Andrew Davidson has listed) have released lists of presidential firsts, so this passes LISTN and should be kept.  The nominator's argument boils down to, "I don't like that certain things are listed, so let's delete the whole damn thing".  If the nominator has problems with some of the individual entries on this list, the place for that is the article's talk page, not AfD  p  b  p  15:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , There are indeed lists of presidential firsts and all kinds of other firsts (magazines have to fill space). The question is whether the firsts in this list are selected according to objective criteria or whether it's an indiscriminate collection of information. How do you square including anything other than "first president" for Lincoln Washington? What could he conceivably have been or done that did not qualify? And much of the rest actually fail the same test - things that would ave been impossible previously (first car trip), for example, or things that are inherent to the history of the US, not the presidency (first trips to X or Y country). It's nothing to do with liking or not liking what's included, the problem is the lack of any objective criteria to decide. Guy (help!) 16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's kind of hard for me to take you seriously when you referred to Lincoln as "first president" instead of Washington. Your comments again are arguing for deletion of the whole list because you disagree with some of the entries.  Again, this isn't really an AfD matter, but I also believe some of your criteria for removing entries (such as things that would have been impossible previously) are arbitrary.  p  b  p  20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An inconsequential error I did not make in the nomination. Now, list all the things Washington did in office that were not done for the first time. Focus on the policy (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and demonstrate how this list somehow isn't indiscriminate. I am arguing for deletion of the whole list because there is no objective basis for deciding what goes in or out. For a list of Academy Award nominees, we have clear criteria. For a list of presidential firsts? Not so much. A lot of these read like those Guinness world records for "first man to stand on one leg for over four hours on top of a pole while whistling Dixie". I mean, yes, it's the first, but so what? Many of them are accidents of history (first president born after the declaration of independence was a historical inevitability and it's totally arbitrary which one qualified), some are matters of fashion (first president to have facial hair), some would have been impossible for any prior president (first president to ride in a motor car). You could perhaps defend it if every single item was supported by multiple references to "first president to do X" sources that establish that this specific first is considered independently significant, but it's going to be trivial to find one source pegging a specific president as first to do virtually anything, because that's the nature of trivia. Someone writing about the history of Marine One will note in passing that Eisenhower was the first president to travel by helicopter - but his predecessor was the first who could even theoretically have done so as helicopters were experimental until the mid 1940s at least. Arbitrariness, fashion and historical accidents are the hallmarks of this article. Guy (help!) 09:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I read through the article and see no reason to delete it. There are references talking about who was the first president to do things on the list.  Perfectly valid article and quite encyclopedic.   D r e a m Focus  17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, so what things that Washington did in office were not done for the first time by a president? Guy (help!) 09:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In 1957 he became the first present to have a submarine named after him. Doesn't have to be while he was in office.  Notable achievements or characteristics should be listed.  Editors can use common sense to determine what to include and not, just discuss it on the talk page.  Anything notable enough to be mentioned in reliable sources.  The media comments that other presidents may have done something, but Washington was the first, such as the first president to stay in the real estate business    D r e a m Focus  10:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is WP:INTERESTING none the less but per the nominator it is essentially trivia and indiscrimate information. A lot of original research and WP:SYNTH also seems to show. Ajf773 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion". It is possible to come up with a practically infinite number of presidential firsts, e.g. first redhead, first left-handed, first (and only) PhD, etc., etc. Also delete I've nominated List of United States presidential candidate firsts for deletion too. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That article’s decision was Speedy Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:7F (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anything actually relevant can be included on each president's page.  This page is mostly trivia, and is very much an indiscriminate collection of information.  Just because information exists in this world doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to reproduce it as a list. Hog Farm (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Two years ago I removed a massive amount of the most ridiculous shit imaginable: Carter was the First President to mark the 40th anniversary of his inauguration, the first presidents to win more than 1 million...2 million...3 million...up to 65 million votes in an election, Johnson was the First President to serve during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II but not to have met her. I see the list has hardly improved since then, full of items that are full of pointless qualifiers (First president to be named Time Man of the Year for his reelection), countries visited, overly specific nonsense (First president to attend the NYC Veterans Day Parade while in office), routine basics (First president born in Missouri.), and generic tidbits of history (First president to have appointed a secretary of energy.). And of course anything Washington did would be the first president to do so... Few articles on Wikipedia are more purely indiscriminate trivia than this. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The list certainly needs trimming down. The inclusion criteria need to be very tight. Only notable things should stay on the list. Nothing unsourced should be on it. But there are many notable things on the list currently. I also note that the page is serving our readers: nearly 60k read it every month. This needs cleanup, not deletion. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN Informational lists like this are kept. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. Please back up your vote with an actual reason. Ajf773 (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty clearly a LISTN pass. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. This list fulfill recognized informational purpose. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , notability isn't the issue. The absence of any objective inclusion criteria is the problem. First president to use a Blackberry, first president to use an iPhone, first president to use an iPhone 6, first president to use Twitter, where do you draw the line? Why did Washington not wear a digital watch or use a smartphone? Guy (help!) 09:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The list needs an ambitious editor. On the talk page a discussion can be started about inclusion criteria. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The uncited parts could certainly be removed, but deleting the entire list is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Orser67 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just where do you propose to draw the line? Probably all of the current entries could be sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could start an RFC to restrict the entries to those that were, say, the subject of media coverage. It did work out for WP:ENDORSERFC ミラP 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dream Focus and Lightburst and for reasons right above. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is too easily addressable to be a reason for deletion. ミラP 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, so what, you'd start by removing everything from Washington because all of that is indiscriminate? And all historical accidents and things that were impossible for previous presidents absent the use of a time machine? Guy (help!) 13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll still make exceptions for those that were a subject of academic study. ミラP 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , if the criterion is to be "has been the subject of academic study", then show me how that looks. Right now it would leave almost nothing there. Guy (help!) 16:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If this list is Kept I think it should be placed under permanent semi-protection. There is always a low-level murmur of oh-so-clever vandal-edits. Putting the List under permanent semi-protection would remove some of that vandalistic-hubbub. Shearonink (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. We might need to discuss parts, but it's a helpful, informative, and notable page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:USEFUL. Guy (help!) 13:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are issues, but nothing that can't be fixed by ordinary editing. Again, AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA (which does not technically exclude these types of articles, but this is a classic example of a terrible, all-trivia article.) The question really is: does this belong? While some non-Wikipedia sources do cover presidential firsts, they're typically just lists of trivia. The topic is probably notable in some way, but I have absolutely no idea how to salvage this article. I'd probably recommend giving it a stay of execution and selectively merging the important information to the presidential pages. Therefore, also calling into a bit of WP:IAR, I'm basing my delete !vote on something found in WP:TRIVIA: A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. This is a classic example of a disorganised, unselective list, and in a way that does not appear to be fixable. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. WP:TRIVIA is irrelevant as it's not about material which some consider trivial.  Instead, it is guidance to avoid sections within articles which are miscellania of unrelated facts and incongruous detail.  As such, it is advice on how to structure an article and so has no place in a discussion of whether there should be an article at all.  And the page in question has an appropriate and sensible structure – a section for each president.  And the facts are not miscellanous because they are all firsts for that president and so have something in common. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This entire article is one giant blob of miscellaneous unrelated facts and incongruous detail, sorted by president. The fact the miscellaneous trivia share a topic makes them neither related nor unselective. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If they are sorted by president, then they are related.  As for selective, this list factors out anything that didn't involve the people who became President of the United States.   p  b  p  14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument doesn't make any sense - the facts themselves are completely unrelated to other facts, many of them are unsourced, and this is mere trivia. The keep votes here are just a collection of useful/I like it votes, but this clearly fails WP:NOT. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * List of United States First Lady firsts may also need to be checked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:7F (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per all of the reasons to keep mentioned above in this discussion. I am surprised as a long time user of Wikipedia that this is even a discussion. I may be new to this whole editing gig, but as a long time Wiki reader, I would expect this article to exist. It is definitely something I would look up. This is data that should be preserved, not thrown away because pieces of it seem arbitrary. If something doesnt seem right, needs citation, seems arbitrary, seems redundant or unnecessary, than edit it. Deleting the whole project in its entirety seems like overkill. If there seems to be something amiss or off about the material in said article, than use the talk page? I thought that is what it was there for. I love Wikipedia, Im a long time reader, and throwing articles like this away? History is not arbitrary, and this article documents history. To remove it seems like a severe waste. :( Again I would stress, that if something seems wrong with it, edit it. Do not simply get rid of it all... Apologies if I am out of line by adding my two cents, or how I am adding them. Still learning the ropes, if I screwed up a policy or guideline, hit me with my mistake. I need to learn to be a better editor yet, and have a lot to learn. Thank you. SageSolomon (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this is encyclopedically fascinating and I'm with on this one - the article needs good editing to clean out the cruft and lists like this are valuable - maybe not to everyone, but to many of us, they are. Missvain (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep, I find it to be interesting and valuable. It just needs some paring.Bkatcher (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , See WP:INTERESTING and feel free to identify your solution to, e.g., the Washington problem. Guy (help!) 23:15, 21 January 2020 (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.