Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We already have three articles thoroughly documenting the presidency of George W. Bush: This article is practically a WP:CFORK, and mostly unnecessary considering how detailed the latter two articles are. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Presidency of George W. Bush
 * George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States
 * George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States


 * Strong keep Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama Making a timeline for a president is completely valid on Wikipedia, and has widespread support. Ethanbastalk 17:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, how much content should this timeline have for you to support keeping it? Ethanbas (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete One of multiple little to no content articles from this editor that're generally just re-statements of or copies from existing articles with no relevant expansion. JamesG5 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, these stubs are almost always notable, and I create them because either I plan to improve them in the future, or as a notice for Wikipedia editors that an article should be created. Jim O'Neill (investor) is one recent example where I created a short stub, and now it was nominated for good article status. I think this timeline we're discussion definitely falls into that category of articles! -Ethanbas (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Because I couldn't put down eight years of information in a day we have to get rid of the article? I don't understand why Obama can have one but Bush can't. Those two articles cited are not timelines so I don't see how they are relevant other than being related to Bush which still doesn't make them substitutes by default. Give me the time to get to every year. It won't be done in a day or a week but it'll get there. Informant16 30 January 2017
 * , you make a very good argument for the creation of Draft:Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush. Why not prepare such a draft and publish it when complete? That would be the very best option, given your steady determination to contribute to the article.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an article that fits firmly in the structure of Category:United States presidential administration timelines. The article is new and being expanded with reliable and verifiable sources; there's no doubt that the notability standard is met here. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So would Timeline of the presidency of George Washington and Timeline of the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, but those articles aren't being arbitrarily created just for the sake of stuffing a category. This article is presently of an extremely poor quality and should at the very least be relegated to WP:DRAFT status, rather than being retained as a stub article.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you deletionists like invoking Wikipedia policies and guidelines so much, please take a look at WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN -Ethanbas (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The policies you are invoking could refer to anything considered notable on a whim. How about a Timeline of the lifetime of Jesus Christ article? If I created a stub and only documented his life say the year before he was crucified, would you honestly think that article would be worth keeping? I mean after all, notability wouldn't be at all an issue, given the fact that he is arguably the most famous person in human history.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You could try creating that article, and see what Wikipedians say about it! But, for this timeline, there is a strong, well accepted precedent with the (8) Obama and Trump timelines. -Ethanbas (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Relevant, definitely notable, and could be very useful to readers looking for a thumbnail sketch of events in GWB's presidency. Granted, this very much a work-in-progress, but deleting it, or even relegating it to draft status, is a bit much. This stub of a TL should be retained, especially given its creator's stated commitment to growing the article and refining its content. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't an external link to this webpage at Presidency of George W. Bush suffice? Note that it was who stated such commitment to growing said article, not the creator. This is what the page looked like the last time he properly edited it.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added events to each year of the timeline. Maybe Nev&eacute;–selbert can now agree that there *is* content on the timeline, and that people (me included) will work on the timeline! --Ethanbas (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Find sources, then add.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all wikilinked. Well known events don't require sources if they are wikilinked. I posted a warning on your talk page. Ethanbas (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And... that thickheaded warning has been duly reverted as vandalism. Well known events don't require sources if they are wikilinked. Per WP:VERIFY: --Nev&eacute;–selbert 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Like I said, what I added are well known events. I don't believe that for an entry such as "January 20 - first inauguration of George W. Bush", I need a source. The verifiability of what I added isn't likely to be challenged me thinks. OTOH, if you look at what Informant16 added for year 2002 of the timeline, that's the type of timeline material that requires sourcing. --Ethanbas (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment is Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton included in this nomination? It seems to have been created with a tag leading to this AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominated for speedy deletion. What is it with creating practically blank timelines of American presidencies? This is borderline vandalism.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per the other nine keeps.  J 947  04:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per what exactly? Keeping a practically empty and a potentially WP:CONTENTFORK copyright violation just for the sake of doing so?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Timelines are generally acceptable and provide a graphical representation of facts and events during a period of time. A US presidency is certainly a notable time period. Organizing notable events in a notable time period makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. The article is sparse but that is grounds for improving it, not deleting it. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Every Wikipedia article is Under Construction. Buster Seven   Talk  17:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I don't see why this couldn't evolve into a very strong and useful article. It may have over lapping information with other articles, but it would be presented and organized in a different way. KConWiki (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I don't see why every U.S. president from Washington through Trump shouldn't have one of these. KConWiki (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi KConWiki, thanks for supporting the existence of these timelines. If you look at Template:US Presidential Administrations, you'll see which timelines already exist, and which don't. Some have existed for a while already, like the Obama, Kennedy, and Ford timelines, while the rest I started in January. I plan to start other timelines very soon. Ethanbas (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Having worked on the Obama timelines for the last 8 years I emphatically support Ethanbus's effort to provide our reader with a concise brief report on the important daily happenings of various American presidents. Buster Seven   Talk  17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it's currently a bit of a crappy article but it's important enough to be included. Deletion isn't clean-up. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it a crappy article? Ethanbas (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2017 (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.