Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation

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

Please do not delete this just because I have both created it and nominated it for deletion. I have done both because I am confused. This is thus a neutral nomination.

This is a National Day, and was proclaimed as such by Barack Obama yesterday, thus it is notable and verifiable. So I created the article (previously speedy deleted "no context"), and referenced it. Now I discover that such days are potentially pointless proclamations by incoming presidents (see article talk page), so I can't decide with any precision if this is worth including here as an article. But the community can, hence the nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability and verifiability is all what is required for an article to stay. Calling it 'pointless' is POV. – Capricorn42  ( talk ) 13:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no difficulty with that. I am looking simply at the other proclaimed days of "something" proclaimed by other presidents, some of which fall in the same date.  They, too, are notable, verifiable and somehow devoid of anything but name, and are absent from here.  You make a persuasive argument for their creation as articles.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or an argument to delete this one :-). Pointless would equate to non-notable in this case. Sure it is verifiable, but there si nothing to say apart from Obama proclaiming it. Per WP:Notnews, an extremely small blip in news coverage does not make something notable.


 * Delete Perhaps "pointless" is point-of-view, since this type of proclamation is always going to sound new, perhaps even inspirational to someone who hasn't noticed one before. Suffice to say that symbolic gestures have never been unusual, nor unexpected, from persons assuming a political office just about anywhere.  In November, President Obama will officially proclaim the fourth Thursday to be "a national day of Thanksgiving", just as his predecessors have. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to be fair I suspect Thanksgiving may well be worth keeping here! Possibly that proclamation has more... clout!  I think you can see why I both created it and nominated it, really.  If we keep it then it is a decent article, albeit small, if not then no tears will be shed, provided the consensus gets it right. What we must not do is allow the discussion to turn from here where it is reasoned and measured into a political rant pro or con, though.   Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought he had said this should be a national day of blah blah. Not this is from now on the official National day of blah! Like having a national day of mourning when a tragedy happens - that is not the same as National Rememberence Day. It's a one off soundbite, that afflicted one day. The day is already over, and it is not notable anymore.Yobmod (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment despite being unsure of the validity of this article I don't think I can accept your argument here. From where I am in the UK this looks like "an official proclamation", not a simple sound bite.  You also cannot argue that a day is not notable because it has passed.  All notable days in history are in the past.  Possibly the real question is "Will this be a day known as this in the future?" and here the proclamation appears to say "yes" and my instinct, which is not known for verifying things, says "no". (after edit conflict) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Bill Clinton proclaimed 1/20/1993 as "National Day of Fellowship and Hope". George W. Bush proclaimed 1/21/2001 as "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving"; George H.W. Bush proclaimed the same on 1/22/1989. None of these are memorable or at all notable. This one is just more recent.Yobmod (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Barring anyone working up the article with adequete sourcing to show notability beyond being just one action he took. Every Presidential action isn't inherently notable, perhaps. Please leave a cross-post to my talk page if you've expanded the sourcing and I miss this on watchlist. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep. The coverage just keeps growing and growing it appears, making this notable. In hindsight I think the fact it was his first official act makes it notable also. rootology ( C )( T ) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There may be an argument for the creation of an article which is a referenced list of "Days given names by incoming presidents as one of their first actions" and placing all such into it as a record of Premature Proclamation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - things like this are done all the time. Congress names dozens of days a year. Non-notable really.  Grsz  11  17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to inauguration article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Switching to keep. Merge discussion can take place on article talk page. Notable event and inauguration. This is a notable part of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I pointed out on the talk page that new presidents are making a habit of declaring one of their first days in office a "National Day of (...)". The exact phrasing varies. It seems to me that it's just a way for a president to do something official right off the bat. It's not notable, unless you plan to make articles for every presidential "National Day of (...)" proclamation. Habfan29 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per . 160 news articles discuss this.  One event?  Maybe, but I don't think so.  That said, a merger of all these "days" into one article is probably the right editorial call.  But it meets the requirements for a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This goes beyond one event. I find it rather interesting that we are discussing the notability  of the first official act of President Obama. And by the way, other stuff doesn't exist is not a valid argument for deletion.--J.Mundo (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say that the first major official act of one of the most powerful people on earth definitely warrants an article. Plenty of good sources too it seems. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * note that there appear to be (at least) two additional "keep !votes" at Talk:National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation which should probably be considered when closing Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The proclamation is, at most, a footnote to the inauguration.  There are not 160 articles that "discuss" this; there are 160 articles that mention it, many only in the context of quoting the entire inaugural address.  I didn't sit and read every article, but I did look at half a dozen of them; none discussed the NDRR in any greater depth, or described it in words not taken directly from the proclamation itself.  There is no information and nothing to say about the NDRR, except that it exists.  The relevant part of the proclamation can go in any of several articles about Obama and his administration, and we can certainly think about creating an article to list all of the days declared in this vein by incoming presidents.  --DavidK93 (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the more I look at this the more I feel we ought to create the article which is a fully referenced list of Days named by US Presidential Proclamation, and to turn this article into a redirect to it, adding the other days to it. While a day so proclaimed's status may be common knowledge to US citizens it is by no means obvious to many of the rest of us.  The day is definitely notable and verifiable, but seems to me not to warrant an article in its own right.  I'm simply wary of creating it while we have this article here.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I created the first (speedily deleted) article, thinking initially that it was a recurring holiday (not having read it properly, I suppose), but then found out about the similar past presidential days. I hadn't known about the other days, and with an article I might have known. Adam Rock 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but make into an article about the inaugural tradition of declaring such days, or merge with United States presidential inauguration. --bd_ (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if only because we'll probably make it again because it's a National Day, but if this is a regular thing then I'm with Tim Trent and Bdonlan on making it a list article. --Applemask (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no opinion on keeping or deleting this article, but I would be interested to see what the AfD outcome would be for any similar article created for such a soundbite from an incoming leader in, say, Brazil or Bangladesh. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You raise an interesting point. It ought to have a similar depth of discussion and breadth of opinion.  One can but hope.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreeing with Mandsford, the article seems pointless, does not seem long enough to be an article based on the notion that it is already mentioned in the Presidency of Barack Obama, and is no more than a sentence and a quote. Resetti 4 Prez (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Obama himself is notable. The inauguration was notable. Gilded rhetoric is not.The Sartorialist (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not significant. -Branddobbe (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There probably ought to be a page to house all of those "my-first-act-as-President" (or "greetings from your new leader") proclamations that get made, with a look at what the first George W. did on April 30, 1789. A few months from now, we'll see this article from a different perspective, and I imagine that it will have the same lack of importance as the similar proclamations that User:Yobmod identified.  Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Yobmod. Spiesr (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and then Redirect to the inauguration page per Yobmod. Epson291 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge into Inauguration Day. I have modified that article with a few sentences which I think convey the essence of this article.  "Pointlessness" of the day is not important, but the fact that this article can't really be expanded much, or separated from discussion of the inauguration, demands a merge. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge. Does not provide significant information independent of other articles. Reywas92 Talk  20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. Unlike the invitation article, this doesn't look there's any more to it than an intro sentence and the content of the declaration itself, which should be on Wikisource. Joshdboz (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is silly, we don't have National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving or National Day of Fellowship and Hope, either, so where's the difference? --Conti|✉ 14:10, 25 January 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.