Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidents by handedness


 * 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 Consensus is overwhelming, and there is no policy reason (eg BLP) not to follow that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

List of United States presidents by handedness

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I want to say arbitrary listing, but as it has... something... I can not. It does however appear to be quite possibly the most blatant case of this quote: even if it is sourced, and it is factual, does not necessarily mean it requires an article on wikipedia –– Lid(Talk) 00:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wonder if this list could ever be considered accurate due to left-handed repression likely to affect the early presidents. Mitico (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - recent revisions lead me to believe this article is not a mere collection of indiscriminate information, but a viable article. Nice rescue in my opinion. Mitico (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

*Delete. That's all. Keep--this is a difference of day and night; we now have an article, not a list. Kudos. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC) *Delete Honestly, it seems like a bunch of original research and unnecessary information to me. Even though it's referenced. It looks like it really would belong better on a blog or a website for these types of facts and not on Wiki.  Lady  ★  Galaxy  03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Whether a president is left handed or right handed is not a defining character of the connection between the person and the office they hold. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am very impressed by the progress that has taken place in this article, which leads to my change of mind. At first I thought it was a useless list, but now several sources have been supplied. All the sources are reliable and meet Wikipedian standards, being newspaper articles as they are. I poked around in the edit history, expecting to see dozens of edits... but I see that all it took were a few to clean this article up. If we keep it, then it can be expanded and it will contribute to the community.  Lady  ★  Galaxy  22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not every bit of information is encyclopedic. (Besides, I don't think McCain would like being called a "lefty".) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — trivial intersection. MuZemike  ( talk ) 05:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment People actually do care about this stuff, as recent news articles show, and lists like this have appeared in print publications: . (That book doesn't include Truman as a lefty, but this one seems to suggest he was.)
 * .I do think Mitico raises a fair point, but we could probably limit the scope of the article to the presidents who are known to be left-handed, or generally suspected to be left handed. Article is shaping up nicely. Good work! Keep. Zagalejo^^^ 07:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

*Merge It is interesting to see that Lefties only started with Hoover and have in recent times become the norm rather than the exception. A reference to a psych/poli-sci article discussing this issue (if one exists) might then merit keeping this info here. Perhaps this should be a list of JUST lefties and ambis in either the U.S. Presidents article or Handedness itself. -Knowl -&lt;(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Hmm, the article has made significant changes since I last was here. I think it should stay now. There are actually people who care about this stuff. Also, I disagree with anyone who says it should merge.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the new layout is a lot better than the old list version. It needs to be renamed, but the new content is on the right track.  Or perhaps, the left track in this case.  -Knowl  -&lt;(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Highly trivial... and as for the merge vote, a.) where would we be merging to, and b.) your argument that it should be kept/merged just because it is 'interesting' is not really relevant to the discussion at hand. &mdash; neuro(talk) 13:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep But it has to make clear why this is a notable topic. People seem to miss the point here: this is not just a random variable, the fact is that the frequency of left-handedness in the last few presidents is almost a statistical impossibility (0.00009), and some have tried to explain why.. The real issue here is what qualities and abilities are controlled by which hemisphere of the brain, how this relates to right/left-handedness, and how all of this relates to the qualities necessary for the office of the president. I'll try to expand it a bit later on. Lampman (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now expanded the lead to include notability of the list based on WP:RS, and reduced it to a relevant period. I would urge everyone to have a second look and reconsider. Lampman (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The real issue here is what qualities and abilities are controlled by which hemisphere of the brain", no the real issue here is this is a listing of US presidents based off which is their dominant hand. Anything beyond that is OR. Hell, this could be arguably OR (as someone pointed out before, in the early presidents time left handed usage was specifically taught against and you were forced to be right handed). –– Lid(Talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you just didn't read my post or if you don't understand what OR means. Anyway, have a second look. Lampman (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lampman. It is a rarity, so has its merits on WP.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the same as WP:INTERESTING with the word "rarity" replacing "interesting". –– Lid(Talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Besides, I an imagine a lot of southpaws liking this article.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe not WP:INTERESTING, but definitely WP:ILIKEIT (in this case, we/they like it). &mdash; neuro(talk) 14:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some of my own research. One of the sources that I came up with was the Guardian article mentioned earlier by Lampman.  Another was an article in the Dallas Morning News .  Then there's the fact that several books all discuss the handedness of U.S. presidents, including ISBN 0871877627 which has a section entitled "Five (or Six) Lefties?".  There's analysis of why the phenomenon might be in this article in the New York Times, and this article in the Washington Post. This topic has been documented by many people over many years, and the possible reasons for the unusual preponderance of left-handedness have been discussed by psychologists.  There's ample scope for an article to be written on the subject that is far more than a bare list that intersects two sets.  And I say that before having even read the expanded article.  &#9786;  Any problems with this article are matters of expansion and cleanup, not deletion.  Keep.  Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has value from a reference point of view, and therefore belongs in an encyclopedia. The article is reasonably well-written, well-sourced and could easily be a candidate for a DYK. The fact that the content has formed the basis for a number of journalistic articles surely makes it suitably notable topic for Wikipedia. Poltair (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK is a good idea, but then the AfD would have to be ended before it becomes intelligible. It seems to be trending towards "keep", but this'll be the closing admin's decision. Lampman (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lampman and Uncle G. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has substantially improved since the AfD began; its sources, including those added just now by Uncle G make it clear that this topic meets WP:N notability requirements. Keep per Uncle G. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Excellent cleanup work has taken place, reliable sources are now in place, all my worries are at ease. I was uneasy still after the expansion at first, but after a good meal I can see that this article should not be deleted. Good job. &mdash; neuro(talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - much improved, especially considering when I saw the title I could have sworn I would be !voting delete. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  18:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe the title is the problem - some thoughts about this on the talk page. Lampman (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The original version of the article was indeed a worthy deletion candidate, but the improvements have been massive - right now this is a very well-written and well-referenced article that discusses a rather obscure but nonetheless worthwhile topic. I'd say that this is a wonderful example of where "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" is an excellent reason to keep an article: the topic is very, very specific but well-referenced and summarised. ~ mazca  t 18:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had trouble understanding the nomination until I checked an older revision. Nice save by Lampman and Uncle G. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Left-handedness. This is more a discussion of the treatment of left-handedness than that of the Presidents' being right-handed, left-handed, or (in the cases of Thomas Jefferson and James Garfield) ambidextrous. The title of the nominated article as it clearly does not discuss the entire set of 42 men who served as President; in fact, it begins at an arbitrarily-determined 1929. Should this be kept, the article should be renamed to reflect its inclusion limits. As it is, this borders WP:COATRACK territory. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lampman. --Falcorian (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep jengod (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to me that there are plenty of references to write an encyclopedic article for this topic. I have to say keep.— Chris!  c t 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lampman and Uncle G. Manxruler (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Being left handed or right handed is a meaningless metric to define a President, nor is it a requirement for the post. What next? A list of presidents by blood type? -- Alexf(talk) 12:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not just a disjointed list, but one with good formatting and an informative lead section and more than enough references. Especially because this intro explains why handedness is even relevant which is the main reason we're having this debate to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely irrelevant. What's next, a list of Liechtenstein Princes by soft-drink preference? --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we get multiple news articles discussing their preferences and the reasons for them, why not? Hut 8.5 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Uncle G and Lampman. Hut 8.5 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not simply a collection of trivia, and the fact that during election silly-season the newspapers will print any old trivia and dress it up as news doesn't make it notable! The fact that the articles on many of these people doesn't mention their handedness suggests that it is a trivial intersection, and it should be noted that all the quoted sources seem to repeat the same statistics, probably unchecked. We need to remember that even notmally reliable sources are infamous for not fact checking properly when running such trivial stories. Mayalld (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article is far beyond an indiscriminate collection of information, it is a coherent and informative article about the fact that the number of left-handed US presidents is a statistical impossibility. If it were simply a list in for the form of Herbert Hoover: left-handed, Franklin D. Roosevelt: right-handed ... then it would be an obvious delete, however there is encyclopedic value in the information contained in the article. ~  User:Ameliorate!  (with the !) (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lampman and Uncle G. This looks like a decent article. --Pixelface (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is about as trivial as it can get. I can't grasp why this useful.  Grsz  Review!  17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a rename, but has in fact, been covered in reliable sources.  No more trivial than list of presidents by height, which is the subject of more than a few scholarly papers. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that it has been renamed to Handedness of Presidents of the United States, as per that article's talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some less awkward adjective to describe a person by their left/right hand use? I certainly don't know it, but I would guess that it exists.  But the new title is an improvement, thanks for the heads up. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There might be a better word, but I can't think of it either, and thesaurus.com isn't being very helpful. :-/ Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- I usually go into AfD debates about lists expecting to find some horrendous crap and usually I'm right. So it's nice to be pleasantly surprised for once. This list is well sourced, well set out and informative. Reyk  YO!  01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - List of left-handed Presidents of the United States was deleted. So was List of famous right-handed people and List of famous left-handed people. On the other hand, handedness is a legit scientific topic. See Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. -- Suntag  ☼  06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps whatever in this article is useful should be merged in one of the handedness articles. Personally, I am now researching material for an article on Handedness of Princes of Wales. --Crusio (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wales don't have hands. -- Suntag  ☼  19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I heart Wikicomedy. :) jengod (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and close — No doubt about it, this is a good article, and of importance to left-handed people. I didn't even know there was a magazine devoted to them. Sincerely, a left-winger who is right-handed, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, casual intersection rather than encyclopediatic value. --Soman (talk) 19:35, 29 October 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.