Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On financial regulation, June 17, 2009


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On financial regulation, June 17, 2009

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

Merely a summary of a non-exceptional speech. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. (Prod was removed). Zim Zala Bim talk  17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should be kept because its about a speech by the President of the United states. It is therefore encyclopedic. I added it to,  , and  .I also added  to the top of the page, but ZimZalaBim removed that template. The speech was on improving the regulation of the financial industry. Financial institutions were selling bad mortgages back and forth to each other like a game of hot potato, and it almost caused a world-wide economic depression. If the speech wasn't good, maybe Zim would like to add a section to the article proving why people think so. If people are saying, "why didn't the president mention the impossibly high cost of housing?" That could expand the article. In other words, why should I do all the expanding? The article was started to qualify an item for nomination for In the news on the main page. There are several other articles on Obama speeches. If it's kept it's there for people to work on. --Chuck Marean 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has removed that expand tag. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  18:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't notice it.--Chuck Marean 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The president gives speeches almost every day, they aren't automatically notable. In fact, most speeches aren't notable unless they have some kind of long-lasting impact (like the I Have a Dream speech).  TJ   Spyke   20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any coverage of the speech itself and a summary of a speech is not is not an encyclopaedia article. It might be possible to reference the speech in the context of Obama's stance/policies on financial regulation somewhere in Political positions of Barack Obama. Guest9999 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are about the subject of the speech and refer to it. For example, Geithner on the Hill to Push Financial Overhaul, Some Lawmakers Question Expanded Reach for the Fed, &President Obama met Wednesday with regulators at the White House--Chuck Marean 19:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Chuck, those allude to the speech, but they aren't articles about the speech. This is just one of thousands of speeches Obama has and will give. There is nothing inherently notable about it (heck, even Bush's speech after 9/11 doesn't have its own article, only being referenced here). You admit above "The article was started to qualify an item for nomination for In the news on the main page" -- that's hardly a good reason to create articles about random speeches. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources aren't about the speech, one doesn't even mention it - they are about Obama's position. Guest9999 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak merge to Political positions of Barack Obama - until more useful information is added, and then split out as needed. IMHO, this doesn't seem to be important enough to be its own article. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – As I stated in the PROD, Wikipedia is not for news articles. That is what Wikinews is for. MuZemike 20:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (or not... but where?). This isn't notable enough to stand alone.  Even if it could pass the formal general notability test, I don't think it's encyclopedic to have a separate article for every speech by Obama that makes the press.  I guess that means it would fail WP:NOT.  However, if there is useful material it could be merged into a more general article about Obama's financial regulation initiative or an even more general article about his economic recovery plans / efforts / legislation / acts.  Obama and members of his administration have been making speeches, issuing statements, and conducting meetings to sell various parts of these plans to legislators and the public, and this speech could be placed in the context of those efforts in an article where they fit.  The "Presidency of..." and "Political positions of..." articles are too general for this to be worth mentioning there, for weight reasons.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is possible for an individual speech by a major leader to be notable (eg We shall fight on the beaches or England expects that every man will do his duty), but this is way, way below that level and Barack Obama has more than enough articles already.  This is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not every speech given by a president is necessarily notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have said, every speech is not notable. I don't think many people in future years will come looking for an article about it. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete An article on the actual regulatory reform will be notable. An article on a speech, suggesting the need for regulatory reform, is not --Daviessimo (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be notable, and I'm not sure I believe you're all different people. The article is to help give background for a current events sentence I wrote about the speech. The speech began a debate on Capital Hill about changing the way the United States regulates the financial industry. Somebody might have the time to expand the article, based on the many news articles about the speech. You will notice I did not put my two cents into the article. I simply quickly summarized the speech and follow-up article I noticed the next day. Deleting it wouldn't give it a chance to be expanded. Since there is a category for Obama's speeches, that is another reason to keep it. I probably won't be working on it anymore myself. If it is merged, it might go into an article about the financial regulation changes, which would effect the world's economy.--Chuck Marean 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Notability guideline strongly suggests that all articles cover notable topics. The existence of a category is not a reason to keep everything it contains; for example, Category:Plays does not justify the wholesale inclusion of all plays. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't level accusations of sockpuppetry ("I'm not sure I believe you're all different people") at other editors, even obliquely. 76.229.236.193 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "It doesn't need to be notable" Yes it does. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then maybe it's as notable as the others because of it's subject. Conserning "sockpuppetry," I read an article that said some people favor it. I don't because it would be too much work. That anyone would want to delete the article on that speech rather than work on it I find sort of non-wiki, especially when there are several other articles on speeches of his, and he hasn't been president very long. Also, as far as starting an article to provide background on a current event, I notice that others do that all the time. For example, articles on California Wildfire drops. Those seem to be written as the events occurred, and I suppose there are similar articles on the fall of the World Trade center. How such current events articles are so wordy is a mystery. One Obama speech article I skimmed I think had a sections on reactions to the speech and so forth. The catigory of Obama speeches gave me the idea to start an article on that speech. I was simply looking for an article to update, because I was going to nominate the news about the speech because it was about changing the financial regulatory system and possible the nature of American free enterprize. There are plenty of articles here that are written slowly online by several random users, and I've read articles that favor that. --Chuck Marean 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the text is available from the horse's mouth (the White House webpage). Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There'll be an article on every time he goes to the toilet next. Nick mallory (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is Wikipedia, not the database of everything President Obama says. I'm of course assuming it refers to President Obama of the United States and talking about the US financial industry, though it doesn't say that. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - why are we even wasting bandwidth on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.139.10 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't worry about performance. If this article is removed, it should be purely because of the subject matter. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:24, 24 June 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.