Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Barack Obama


 * 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   Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Let it again be noted that I have no involvement with this article beyond properly formatting the AFD for another user. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

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

Reason: Redundant, Ill-Conceived Wiki Article This topic is properly covered in Barack_Obama (section Political Positions) or the Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 (section Political Positions). The political positions of the Barak Obama campaign will not change because the campaign is over. As Obama is now an elected executive, on-going he will not have modified political "positions", he will have policies which will or will not conform to his his campaign positions. So a major article on Barak Obama's "new" political positions is trivial and silly. After the election of Barak Obama, maintaining this article as though the President can have new "positions" that are separate from the bills he signs, the policies his administration declares would require mind-reading. It is the equivalent to General Electric's P.R. division maintaining separate wiki article on the "Environmental Positions of the General Electric Board of Directors" rather than one on the actual environmental-related initiatives G.E. takes. Worse it is like some guy reading news articles to attempt to discover the environmental positions of the G.E. board.

After a president is elected, "positions" (such as, for example "The Bush Doctrine are derived by opinion writers and political critics. Some of these positions might one day deserve a Wikipedia article. Most will not. But wikipedia editors are not capable of deriving the President's personal "positions" in opposition to the policies he acts on.

So the content of this article is properly applicable to a sub-section of the 1) Barack_Obama article or the 2) O.B. Presidential Campaign 2008. Number 2 is the best choice because it better limits the scope of the intended content.--Manawyddan (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This was improperly added to the AFD log. I created a discussion page anyway just for the sake of fixing the error. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this seems like an inexplicable nomination. The article contains notable positions about a leading public figure, with each position properly verified by reliable sources. There are no problems with neutrality, and no violations of biographical policies that I can see. In addition, there is an ongoing discussion about how this article can be revamped following Obama's election. Given the enormous amount of information here, it would be difficult to see how this could be merged into the other articles suggested by the nominator without a significant loss of material. Also, this represents one of the sub-articles of Barack Obama, which is written in summary style. Deleting this article would create cascading problems for the parent article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong & Speedy Keep This issue is not about deletion--it's about a potentially highly controversial restructuring of the organization of articles relating to Barack Obama. There is too much well-sourced material on this page to argue that the material is not notable.  While I'm certainly open to such discussion, I think discussion of such restructuring belongs on the corresponding talk pages for those articles, not here.  This is a highly inappropriate use of AfD, in my opinion and I would recommend the nominator to withdraw the nomination and bring the issue up on the relevant talk pages.  If you want, I will gladly join in the discussion there!  Cazort (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This article has constant fights about its neutrality since the sub-headings are draw from sources spanning four five years and are updated with no reference to former "positions" on the same subject. The article attempts to present Obama's "current" positions on subjects without reference to (and sometimes contrary to) the actual policies documentable of his adminstration. In short, many of the "postions" are authored by the editors rather than documented. This is article is just something to fight over, because "positions" ends up being defined as however the editors want to define it on a given day. There is no way to emphatically know whether information belongs in the article or it doesn't without being able to read Pres Obama's mind. The last man standing in an edit war will decide every debate, and honest additions to the article are happiliy reverted by the other side with gratuitous claims of "vandalism". --Manawyddan (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you set up the afd. Why are you !voting? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - whether AfD is the right place to go about it or not, the article as it now stands should not exist, because it contains a lot of information without a clear organization or focus. "Positions" are something a candidate, or an up-and-coming politician has.  A President has other things: actions, policies, public perception.  Much of the article was written during the campaign season, a grab bag of campaign promises, public statements, past voting record, political ideology, beliefs of others, all regarding what he might do as President.  Now that he is, it is all stale.  Any updates are likely redundant with the Presidency of Barack Obama article.  I think this article needs to be dismantled and well sourced parts merged to various other articles.  Maybe there is a shell left, such as presidential campaign platform / promises of Obama.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article is important as it serves as a resource for information about Barack Obama's political positions. Numerous other politicans, many of lesser notability, have similar pages. I see no reason why Obama, who is extremely notable, should be treated any differently. With regards to issues of vandalism, semi-protecting the article on a permanent basis would likely protect it from the majority of such action. Otherwise, the rules regarding BLP should be sufficient (as they have been in nearly all similar political positions pages).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
 * For the record, I am not involved in this afd other than formatting it properly. I have no opinion on the article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scjessey. Arkon (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment— the nominator's arguments appear to support a merge rather than a delete.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep This article was budded off from the main Barack Obama article, per Summary Style. That article is already far too large to support the level of detail contained in this article.  Also, the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion in their nomination (just the old I don't like it). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is an odd nomination. This is one of the few articles I've seen recently that I really found useful. The article has a pretty well organized and comprehensive notable policy positions of the President, with each policy verified by reliable sources. I see no  neutrality issues. This is a valuable addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, recommend WP:SNOW. Oren0 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 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.