Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left-handed 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 keep. Name question can be handled editorially Star   Mississippi  15:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

List of left-handed United States presidents

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NLIST. Trivia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information TartarTorte 20:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is notable per our WP:NLIST guideline: it is focussed and it is not indiscriminate. It fulfills informational and navigation, purposes. The article has 15 16 references which include the Washington Post and The New York Times and there are more references which WP:NEXIST. Bruxton (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think that the WP:LISTPURP part of WP:NLIST is a stronger argument to go on, but of the three main purposes of a list, I think that this might be informational, but that's arguably still trivia; however, I do not think that the list fulfills a valid navigational function. Per LISTPURP a list's purpose in navigations as a natural [table] of contents and [index] of Wikipedia. My argument for it being indiscriminate is not that it has a lack of focus, as it is accurate and focused, it is per merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. from WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TartarTorte 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bruxton and rename List of left-handed and ambidextrous presidents of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we make the title a little bit longer? Jacona (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near challenging Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Destined for greatness! Jacona (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 18:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: per INDISCRIMINATE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Leaning keep, as this is a topic of reporting and significant to concepts of representation. BD2412  T 21:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, if i was judging a book by its covers only, the title of the article might suggest this is fribulous. However, the article is well sourced and there are academic sources that have researched this topic. whether a topic is superfluous or frivulous is actually a subjective measure that i think we should not use in judging articles (otherwise other long-standing curious articles would have been gone. the best measure remains whether  good sources exist on the topic. thank  you. Al83tito (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I cannot concur with the toilet paper argument - see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. I will reiterate again that IMO this article which is little more than a stub, is INDISCRIMINATE, and for its size has an unusual plethora of sources. One can source almost anything if one tries hard enough. Just because an article has sources does not make it appropriate or a notable topic for Wikipedia. This is the kind of trivia that Quora is famous for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:NOTTRIVIA (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @ buidhe, the fallacy that i believe you are point out (“what about x”) is a fallacy if “x” were a bad, unvetted article. I understand that my point may have come across that way. Let me rephrase it: it is my understanding that the toilet paper article has been thoroughly vetted. It therefore is a manifestation of the rigorous application of the wikipedia policies and guidelines. The point it helps demonstrate is that it doesn't matter if to a group of people something feels frivolous; the question is whether reliable sources exist covering the topic, which is a much more objective measure. The wiki guidelines further point out that notability can even be established within a very niche field or topic, as long as reliable sources exist.


 * The argument that this article has too many sources and therefore should be deleted, is a surprising one to me. Using this logic, this is a situation where “damned if you, and damned if you don’t”; if it has too few sources, let’s delete it, and if it has too many, let’s delete it.


 * I think we should go back to the basics, and beyond the potential risibility of the title, see if it has reliable sources. And maybe consider a different title, for example “lefthandedness in US presidents” (and pardon my grammar if i am making a mistake), so we move away from the article being primarily defined as a list, and more towards an article that covers the scholarship on the topic. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you raise an important point. I do think part of why this list "feels" problematic (besides the topic itself which some object to) is because it is a list that has already expanded into article territory when it comes to the size of the prose (also relative to the size of the list). I would support keeping the list but moving it to an article page called Lefthandedness in US presidents, which could be further expanded if needed, if there is consensus for such a move. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, as there is a mix of both academic and mainstream media sources validating the notability of this list, which has clear criteria for inclusion. Understand that the topic seems trivial to some, but other objections sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As long as Bias against left-handed people exists, this is a highly relevant and serious topic for many. I wouldn't change the name of the article but the alternate title incorporating "ambidextrous" might be a reasonable redirect. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2022 (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.