Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Presidency 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    Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama

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

This page is as redundant with Presidency of Barack Obama as Barack Obama's first 100 days which was deleted last week. (See Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days) TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE.  Grsz  11  18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not the place for a day-by-day summary of the president's actions. Reywas92 Talk  19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started section on Talk:Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama to breakdown what kind of info belongs and what doesn't.  Obviously there's no obligation at all to cover every single day, but the beginnings of presidencies are usually more event-filled. Joshdboz (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Timeline articles can serve as a more detailed source of information not worth keeping within the main article. See United States presidential election, 2008 timeline for a good example of this. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While a worthwhile project, this seems to be way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Every day has its own entry. By the end of four years, or eight!, this will run into hundreds of pages. Really more like a primary source than a readable article. Give it its own website, but not WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep WP has other articles like this, such as 2009 and 2009 in music. No, it's not "like an encyclopedia", but WP isn't like an encyclopedia in many, many ways.  Whether editors keep this article up to date, and the entries at a consistent level of selection, that remains to be seen.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment this AFD seems relevant: Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although at present this article may be redundant with portions of Presidency of Barack Obama, this will certainly change in the future. As the list of actions taken by President Obama grows, it will eventually be necessary for the Wikipedia community to decide which of his actions are important enough to be mentioned in the main article in order to keep it from being too lengthy. This page should be kept in order to serve as a record of ALL the president's actions, regardless of their believed worthiness for the main article. — Shawn81 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP is WP:NOT of everything the POTUS does. Reywas92 Talk  02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument is pretty much why I wanted to keep Barack Obama's first 100 days. I think his first hundred days will eventually have too much content to be viewed as worth keeping in the larger article.  Consensus is that this was not a valid reason to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As creator, the only reason it was started was because the Presidency of Barack Obama section was rapidly filling up with daily info that would quickly overwhelm the article. There's no reason why this timeline must be daily, but I find no difference (in form or notability) between it and the many other timelines on this site.  The Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict was created for the same reason when the relevant info was too much for the parent article. Joshdboz (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created before the article was rapidly filling up since it is not even filling up yet. It is probably 10-20% of the acceptable size. Barack Obama's first 100 days was also created for overflow so as to section the article in a manageable way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking about the size of a single section, which was already of substantial size and just covered a few days in January. Since this information will inevitably be removed or greatly reduced over four years, there's no reason why it shouldn't be moved elsewhere. Joshdboz (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can foresee separate articles for each year of his presidency plus pages for foreign, domestic, military, and economic policies and numerous other pages. I think the first 100 days will be such a large volume of encyclopedic content that it should be WP:PRESERVEd.  If this is kept, I am going to WP:DRV that article. When the WP:AFD occurred everyone said have one article and then if it fills up see if we need WP:SUMMARY articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep: Possibly rename, and make sure it doesn't end up like news coverage. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page is going to evolve, and the important points of the presidency will become apparent, the less important ones will disappear. Having a separate page to the main page about the presidency allows a broader view on the main page, and a more detailed timeline on this. It's not exactly the only timeline in Wikipedia: List of timelines Mihtjel (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Currently, this is a mindbendingly dumb article, grossly failing WP:NOT. It won't be after a while. I'd say userfy until there's actually enough of a presidency to justify a timeline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete --TorsodogTalk 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep We will need a timeline of baracks time in office, otherwise, his presidency page will get filled with trivia. I think this article is neccessary for people to know exactly what the timeline is/was. Portillo (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Now that the First 100 days section of Presidency of Barack Obama is beginning to get pretty lengthy, it has been shortened. This will continue to be the case, and all the information that isn't notable enough to be on the main article (though still notable) would remain here. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – a good way of keeping Presidency of Barack Obama from clogging up. The timeline article must be maintained on a regular basis so that only truly notable events are listed, but the fact that not all events currently listed are equally notable is no ground for deletion. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - A time line that is constantly updated is incredibly useful, its also better than the silly 100 days notion because a presidency is not and should not be defined by the first 100 of its 1460 days in office HawkShark (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a useful source of information on the subject (what wikipedia is supposed to be, yes?) and prevents other articles from clogging up with data. If editors fail to keep up to date in later months it is still a detailed, reliable source of President Obama's first impact in the position. --Logonberry (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this list for now -- most of its entries seem notable/concise.  ↜Just me, here, now … 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep We NEED to keep this, at least until his 100 days are up. I don't think any othe president in recent times has been such under the scope in his first hundred days. I think for a variety of reasons but mainly because he's walking into one of the most busiest times in american history (economic meltdown, global warming, two wars, etc.) And the fact that he ran on change throughout his campaign, therefore people are very interested in each day that passes. People in the media are actually doing programs and what have you regarding this. So yes, KEEP. Neverfades (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is an aggregate of the news, and therefore patently fails WP:NOT. If the Presidency page quickly gets filled up with short pieces of information such as those on this page, the correct response is not to create another article to hold all the trivia. It's to select only important issues, and weave them into the content of the main article. Currently this article is filled with trivial reports on everything he has done, and so also fails WP:NOT. I would also like to point out to the eventual closer that the four immediately preceding comments have zero basis in policy (respectively: no policy even alluded to; notability doesn't apply to content itself, and no refutation of the arguments for deletion; useful and useful) and should therefore be disregarded on closure. seresin ( ¡? )  07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:Recentism: "[...] As a growing phenomenon on the Web, Wikipedia is generally looking for ways to increase its relevance and breadth in comparison with other reference sites.  One area in which Wikipedia excels is its ability to compile reference information on current events and news . [...] After 'recentist' articles have calmed down, the instigating news story has dropped from the Main Page and the front pages of newspapers, and the number of edits per day has dropped to a reasonable minimum, concerned Wikipedians ought to initiate comprehensive rewrites. Most articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to major issues to which the article is related. Much of the timeline content and day-to-day updates with minor details can safely be excised . [...]"
 * This methodology (ie allowing coverage to current events to remain in flux, ultimately to have its more notable parts distilled out) only makes sense -- as it allows there to be in existence community-produced articles about current events from which the community can thereafter cull the best bits.  ↜Just me, here, now … 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. Jtrainor (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concern and I think it is useful to take into account in terms of the content chosen for the timeline (discussions of which should take place on the talk page). In terms of Not News, the policy states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" - and absolutely, most of the items listed are not individually sufficient for an article, but are highly relevant to his presidency, and therefore a chronological account of his presidency. Neither is this an indiscriminate collection, because it is relatively clearly defined by the title what kind of general information is relevant and what is not, which also happens to be based on an agreed to be notable article, the Presidency of Barack Obama.  Joshdboz (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt people are making this as a fanpage because they like President Obama. In what way does this resemble a fansite?  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It's informative and useful. I'd say it should be condensed or merged into a different article when it gets too big or possible bias enters into it. But at the moment it's important and quite practical. And perfectly reasonable to be on Wikipedia. 86.25.127.142 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Portillo and HawkShark. The notion of "100 days" probably has more to do with people's fascination with powers and/or multiples of 10 than with anything else. And a timeline can do what a typical article can't: present an abundance of information in summary form. In Presidency of Barack Obama, quality is king, but in a timeline, quantity can have its moment in the sun. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I can see why some people want to let it go, but wikipedia is rapidly becoming a source for valid information of all sorts. If they can find it here and it's well cited Why wouldn't we keep it? Misery507 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. Once we get to ... April/May of 2009 then the 100 days of Barack article would make sense without being too recent-ish. To me this does seem like a list that will careen out of control and may be better suited for a political wiki with wikipedia keeping the most notable bits. -- Banj e  b oi   03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many news sources cover the actions of a U.S. president on any given day, which means that an article Actions of Barack Obama on February 15, 2010 would probably be notable and should be kept under Wikipedia policy.  (Whether they should remain or not, there are even articles like Casey Knowles and Ann Nixon Cooper which are about people who are known mostly because they played a peripheral role in events surrounding Obama for a few days).  But rather than having a different article for each day in Obama's presidential terms, we can combine them into a few "timeline" articles like this one.  Such an article is sourced, notable, and relevant. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the only concern for inclusion. Transitory events of little lasting consequence, even if notable, may not be appropriate encyclopedia subjects. Indeed, it has been acknowledged already here that eventually this won't be a day-by-day breakdown. The debate is what to do until that eventual time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article topic is more than routine news coverage and notability is not temporary.--J.Mundo (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Timelines articles are acceptable in Wikipedia. Do we really have to discuss the notability of President Obama's actions?  --J.Mundo (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Alot has been said, and editor:Jmundo wraps it up nicely.--Buster7 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unless there's a way for this article to be automatically generated from other dated information, which as of now I don't think there is. ciphergoth (talk) 09:03, 2 February 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.