Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. On arguments, and less importantly numbers, there is a rough consensus to delete this article. The controlling policies and guidelines are, as recognised by the participants, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. The keep !voters have not pointed to substantial evidence of the enduring notability and significance of the visit, of which WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT both speak. Such evidence would have been necessary to stand in the way of the widespread support (measured numerically, less the occasional junk !vote) for deletion at this AfD on the basis that this was a routine state visit without enduring significance. There is no consensus for a merge, largely because of the absence of a suitable merge target. Of course, I would be happy to provide the uncontroversial history of the article to anyone who would like to use some of the content in a different article. Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's visit to India

[edit]
A note to those mentioning a transwiki: Wikinews and Wikipedia have different licenses, of which Wikinews' is the more liberal, meaning that a transwiki is impossible unless each and every contributor agrees to relicense their contributions. Further information at WP:Wikinews and n:WN:Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama's visit to India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heads of state make state visits. That's what they do when they aren't in their own county. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this trip has no implications in significant changes in international relations, law, etc. Grsz11 03:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

otable enough for its own article. (I was initially going to suggest a merge to List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama, but that article seems like a content fork in itself. Maybe that should also be listed here?) Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a merge would be the best option, per Erpert above. While the tour may be significant, it is still a state visit after all and there is nothing to suggest any notability. Mar4d (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or better still, do a transwiki as Hongkongresident suggested. Mar4d (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that every major politician that visits India should get an article devoted solely to details about that visit? Your comparison to Nixon's visit to China is a bit WP:FUTURE. Nightw 13:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. State visits are routine, there is nothing demonstrably notable or significant about this particular one. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone a few days and if nothing of real significance happens, then probably merge into India – United States relations. Article is relatively well written and sourced. The problem lies in notability of the topic itself. If this event does not turn into something significant, then the article would become just would-be wiki-news article. But there is still possibility ahead, that world wide media might report about it something of importance. Don't now what. Some agenda behind the trip cost, some significant speech or controversy might happen. As the article is weel written, I would wait few hours/days to see, it would well incorporate into this news skeleton (so I would relist the nomination few days ahead from now). As Johnsemlak states some significant state visits might be noteworthy, but we still have no criteria to judge it here. If nothing special will happen, part of its wikicode might be usable for updating India – United States relations article. It seems to me that it will fit there better then just to Obama's timiline (there is not enough space for that) or List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama. Reo ON | +++ 14:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are actually right. At applying the rule. I expected this reply somehow. I didn't write the article and I wouldn't do so myself. But looking at it, I just see fit to apply WP:IAR or WP:WIARM for there is really only hours left before we will see. And from all the possible state visits between different politicians of the world, in this one at least I judge it to have at least the potential to be noteworthy. At least if fore someone from central Europe like me, non related to either India or US the visit seems to be an event... And I do see it been reported here in our country like this: [1], [2]. For myself, the world wide news does not prove it to be noteworthy enough yet. But still I do not see it to be on the of the same level as blabber like reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities (from NOTNEWS). It is high-end connection between two world powers, so it kind of crossroad and it has different potential to change world. (just for ex.: It may be crazy interesting and of importance, whether relations with Pakistan might be influenced, impact on contracts, strategic alliance in region or ties of India to western world will actually replace recent gravitation of India more and more towards Rusia?) Wikipedia is not crystal ball :) thats right. But I would (IAR) just wait the few moments if it is as it right now. (visit's ending today). That's all. :) + Transwiki is not bad idea here too. Reo ON | +++ 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, your rationale for the application of IAR is flawed. IAR doesn't mean we can ignore any particular rule or set of rules when it suits us; it's for special cases that aren't accounted for by the rules as written. The rules in this case (NOTNEWS, GNG, EVENT etc) were written with very similar circumstances in mind and, being a policy and guidelines respectively, are supported by a much wider consensus than we'll get in this AfD. These rules don't "prevent [us] from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"bolding mine for effect and so shouldn't be ingored. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only possible if every contributor to the article gives their consent because WN has an even more liberal license for redistribution than WP does. In other words it's so much of a headache as to be near impossible. I'm not against the idea, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was ridiculing Warden's "people are searching for it, so keep it!" position, not advocating that it be deleted because of the current title. I don't care what it is called personally, it is the subject matter itself that I am opposed to. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is not just another routine visit. a classic misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS which states routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia This visit is an event of enduring significance with US reversing its long standing policy & lending support to India's bid for NSG, MTCR etc for 1st time, several large Indian firms being taken off "entities list" by US thereby paving trade between US and these companies. it clearly meets WP:N with multiple independent RS from across the world covering it so I will not spend more time discussing that. as far as meeting WP:EVENT is concerned the WP:EFFECT is already evident and I would point to Barack Obama's visit to India#Impact. creating 50,000 jobs in the middle of a recession and concluding $10 billion in business deals is no small feat IMO (even for POTUS). Approx 80 countries have GDP lower than that. Wall street journal even has an editorial on this event [3]. what percentage of events covered by WP are considered notable enough for an opinion piece by WSJ ?? WP:BREAKING states and I quote Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. It seems to me that the deletionists want a separate (much higher) threshold for notability for Obama's actions and another threshold for the average notable person. I agree not everything obama does is notable but this visit is one of the notable things he has done recently--Wikireader41 (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI Disclaimer: User:Wikireader41 is the creator and primary contributor of the article. Nightw 08:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI Disclaimer: User:Night w is not the creator or the primary contributor of the article. --Wikireader41 (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...so? Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with it being merged and redirected to India–United States relations, but even there it would need to be substantially trimmed down. I don't think there is a real argument to be made for the article staying intact. Whatever the American press say, this is no more significant than all the other hundreds of visits that nobody would ever create an article if it weren't Obama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to that article would give WP:UNDUE weight to this visit. The only article I think this could be merged to would be Barack Obama's Asia tour 2010 when that is available. could you clarify that "I don't think there is a real argument to be made for the article staying intact". Is it because with only a few thousand cites in WP:RS this is not notable enough or because you think the Impact is not substantial enough? AFAIK the threshold to establish notability to justify a stand alone article per WP:GNG is the same for everyone and heads of state do not have a separate higher standard.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed notability. Quoting: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." Wikipedia is not, for example, News. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well WP:NOTNEWS is about Routine news. A visit from the head of state of the oldest democracy to largest democracy to discuss its membership in UN security council, while sealing export deals worth $ 10 billion, reversing long standing policy to support Indian membership to Nuclear Suppliers Group, MTCR, Australia group etc can hardly be considered routine news. If I may mention Routine news doesn't get editorial pieces in the Wall Street journal and New York Times about it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ would be derelict in its duty if it didn't write about this. Just putting Obama on the front page sells newspapers and that's what they're trying to do. This is very routine news. David Cameron did something very similar just a few weeks ago. India is becoming a big player on the world stage and many western governments see trade with India as a good way out of the recession so they're bound to visit and get chummy with the Indian PM, that doesn't make it notable. Oh, and the US is not the world's oldest democracy, democracy has been been around for centuries before the US was even thought-of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK so now Notability should have a benign motive behind it to be considered notable. I would argue newspapers and the likes of BBC are in the business to make money and would put anything on the front page if it helps the achieve that goal. "India is becoming a big player and many governments want to get chummy with Indian PM". you are right about that. And that is exactly what makes this notable. The world is witnessing an unprecedented shift of power from the west to east and this visit is a small indicator of that. US is not the oldest functioning democracy ? maybe we should write to the RS that say that then and have them speak WP:TRUTH. Last time I checked it was the only superpower, the richest country in the world and the strongest military power by far and POTUS sits on top of all that. How many billion dollars worth of business did Cameron do? maybe we should have an article about that also.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're using quite a lot of verbiage to defend what is in reality a simple, routine news event. Typical hyper-inclusionism run amok. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it hyper-inclusionism. It's natural to seek to defend what you've spent a considerable amount of time writing, but we can argue over whether the US is the biggest this or the oldest that til we're all blue in the face but it still won't make this trivial visit notable. Notability is defined by WP:N, WP:GNG etc, all of which are guidelines. [[WP:NOT] is a policy and this falls afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikireader41, with the greatest respect to you, if you look at this dispassionately, you can't possibly justify the existence of this article in its own right. By your own admission, it fails WP:UNDUE (another policy). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE would apply only if we include all this info in the article on US-India relations or try to merge it into the Obama article. well I think we have a disagreement here what WP:NOTNEWS means when it says what Routine News is. Not the first time this 4 sentence policy has been misapplied and I suspect it won't be the last. with due respect to all !voting for delete here I do not think that one can consider a state visit by Head of State of the Richest democracy (OK maybe not the oldest) to the largest ( a billion plus and counting) democracy where deals worth $ 10 billion were sealed , permanent membership of India into UN Security council was discussed, long standing US opposition for Indian membership to NSG, MTCR, Wassenaar arrangement, australia group is dropped, routine by any stretch of Imagination. Not to mention today we will see a rare address by a Head of State to a Joint session of Indian Parliament. IMO that in itself confers this event notability enough for a stand-alone article like Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009. This kind of speech happens much more rarely than the state of Union addresses in US and 2010 State of the Union Address would be a similar speech. Bush was not able to do this during his visit in 2006 [4] and this is a truly rare honor afforded by The Indians. Recently David Cameron's request to do so was politely turned down by Indians[5]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Those supposed billions of dollars' worth of business aren't being done just because Obama get on a plane. He could have negotiated those deals on the phone, but that wouldn't make it notable. Likewise, he didn't support India's hypothetical bid for permanent UNSC membership because he was India at the time and thought it would be a nice gesture. Again, he could easily have done that from the comfort of the Oval Office. So what we're left with basically (assuming we all accept that not everything Obama does is notable) is that some bloke got on a plane and flew a few thousand miles. I did that a few weeks ago, but my trip's not notable. It's not made notable by a speech and an empty gesture that could have been made from anywhere nor by the status of the bloke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HJ that is complete WP:OR by you. what makes you so sure that the deals would have been signed if he hadn't come to India and personally sucked up to Singh. The bid for UNSC is hypothetical only in your mind. I agree it may take some time but looks like China too may announce support for India's bid ( UK,Russia & France have already endorsed India's bid). Now that India already has a (temporary) seat in UNSC one of their main thrusts will be to move forward the bureaucratic process and hasten reform of UNSC. ask any businessman around a telephone call or email is no substitute for a personal visit if you want to seal the deal.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment here, in reply to wikireader. This isn't being covered by news organizations because it is a state visit to a large country with many important discussions on the table. It is being covered because there was some wingnut furor over the perceived cost of sending the president and his entourage abroad. Bear that in mind. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that is complete and utter BS--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
right and US presidents routinely go around endorsing other countries bid for a permanent seat in UN Security council ?? Maybe he will do the same in Indonesia and South Korea. This visit was as non routine as it gets despite vague handwaves to the contrary.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The endorsement itself is probably notable, and worth a brief mention in one of those CountryX-CountryY relations" articles, sure. But the visit itself is not, it doesn't matter where Obama was when he made the endorsement. There's a notable difference. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
apparently Obama did not think it would be sufficient to pick up the phone and call Singh let him know of the endorsement, send an email or ask his Press secretary to release a statement ( about US support to India for UNSC seat). Instead he thought it was necessary to go to India accompanied by 36 warships, 500 staff and 200 business leaders & become the 2nd US president ever to address a rare joint session of Indian Parliament and reveal the major shift in US policy there. If he had listened to you American Tax payers could have saved a bundle. Tarc read WP:LETGO. there is no way in hell this article will be deleted. It might actually be a featured article per WP:FA in not to distant a future.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, WP:LETGO is far more applicable to users with fanatical ownership issues, ones can't stand to see an article they worked on or created be deleted, I'm afraid. And the fact that you have a bone to pick about the cost kinda calls into question the motivations to write and keep this article in the first place, so now we're wading into pointy, undue waters. And finally, "there is no way in hell this article will be deleted" ? I certainly admire your unwavreing confidence, but this is currently running 2:1 in favor of deletion or merging elsewhere, so I hope you like the taste of crow. AfDs are not bean-counting votes, but it'd take some amazingly powerful "keeps" to overcome that. As the "keeps" are pretty much a collection of "it may be notable one day", "all trips are inherently notable", and so on, I don't see that happening. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:NOTNEWS is that every official trip that the president makes is notable. Whereas, his personal trips, although covered in the media, would not be notable. In this case, he is making one trip to 4 countries. Two of those countries (Japan and Korea) will probably be be covered in expanded articles for the 2010 G-20 Seoul summit and APEC Japan 2010 conferences, but that doesn't mean that the other countries and/or other activities in Japan and Korea that dont have anything to do with the meetings should be left out. Which is why I recommend renaming the article to Barack Obama trip to Asia 2010 to cover all that. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Nixon's visit to china in 72 was notable. Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev in 61 was notable. Churchill and Roosevelt's meetings (though secret at the time) in the middle of the atlantic were notable. There are probably dozens of state visits in the past 100 years which have had serious and detailed coverage in the press and in retrospective sources. A far cry from the notion that every trip abroad by an american president is notable. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL are all relevant here. This is trivial, however ego-stroking India may find it at the moment. Nixon's visit to China was a crore times more important! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with a future possibility of merging as per several suggestions above. This is "news," true, but so were the Chilean mine rescue, the Gaza flotilla raid, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This trip is a noteworthy event that has generated significant international controversy and discussion. Here is the relevant text from WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." So, there shouldn't be an emphasis on updating the article in a breaking-news fashion. However, this is not "routine reporting" on trivial subjects, and it is an event with enduring notability. The controversy ($200m a day etc etc) may not have enduring notability, but the article hardly touches the controversy. --Ginkgo100talk 19:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Ginkgo100. Like many simuilar articles, it is both news and a historic moment. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India thinks the speech was historic[6] and BTW POTUS started his speech saying US is the worlds oldest democracy. You might want to write to him to stop spreading lies around the world and stick to WP:TRUTH--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes because he's such an impartial source. Democracy was born in Greece. Obviously. Luckily, you live in a country where you don't have to blindly accept everything your precious president says as indisputable fact. Though apparently fortune was wasted on you. Nightw 13:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what "POTUS" means! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yeah, that one took me a while as well. Nightw 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Wikireader41's reference to WP:BREAKING and Ginkgo100's analysis. I would have said the page could have been merged into India – United States relations but that page is already long enough and merging the information from this page would inevitably result in cited material being inappropriately trimmed. Therefore, I think it fits nicely into its own page as a subtopic of those relations. Plenty of well cited material and a visit that has already proven important historically in terms of India's relations with the United Nations easily satisfy basic notability requirements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How has this event "proven important historically in terms of India's relations with the United Nations"? Surely you mean the United States, yes? Even then, no it hasn't. Nothing "historical" has occured on the back of this, there's hardly any impact to speak of except for a few trade deals and minor agreements. It's a major overkill of minor information that can easily be summarised and merged into another article. Cameron went over to India in July in what he called the "largest UK trade delegation in living memory" (BBC). Should I also create a David Cameron's visit to India article simply because he made a few trade deals whilst over there? Rediculous! Nightw 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a topic has to be Historically important to justify a standalone article. who defines what is historically important?? will anybody even remember what wikipedia is 100 years from now. Is wikipedia itself historically important ?? maybe we should delete wikipedia itself . Ludicrous argument. Like I said NO way in hell will this article be deleted. Just hang around and see. and BTW UK is not USA and will never be. This article is about a matter between the oldest and the largest democracies of the world. David Cameron did try to address the Parliament and was politely shown the door by Indians--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now it's notable because it's American? Ladies and gentlemen, please have a seat as this news may shock you: not everything American nor done by Obama is notable! We now return you to your scheduled programming. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
who said that ?? I totally agree that Barack Obama's bowel habits are not notable. but when he goes on a state visit and does all the things he did and both PM Singh and Obama call it a "Historic milestone"[7] then IMO its notable enough for a stand alone article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable" is a much lower standard than "historic." Things don't have to be as important as Alfred the Great saving England or Martin Luther nailing up posters in order to be notable. This isn't a paper encyclopedia where space is at a premium. Of course we keep out the fluff like your neighbor's new garage band and the local high school's girls' swim team results. But at this point I'd say the burden is on the deleters to demonstrate that this is not an important event, and that the Wikipedia community would not be served by having this article. --Ginkgo100talk 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is significant enough 03:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Any significant and notable developments in bilateral relations are hidden by placing them in article associated with a state visit. Information about new permanent members to the security council, for example, to the extent to which it is notable is better placed in the articles associated with those organisations and bilateral relationships. There is nothing inherent in this state visit that makes it notable. --Inas66 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and exactly which policy on wp stops you from placing such info in more than one article?? By all means this info should be included in all relevant articles. The notability of the visit is well documented in the tens of thousands of RS which covered it and by the reactions of governments of several countries around the globe.--Wikireader41 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be serious. Just because an event appears in the newspapers, it doesn't mean we have to rehash it as an encyclopaedic article. Less than 10% of the article is actual encyclopaedic information. The rest... (I quote):

"During his stay in Delhi he visited Mughal emperor Humayun's Tomb and paid homage to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi at Raj Ghat. The Obamas then received a formal welcome at Rashtrapati Bhawan in New Delhi."

Who the hell cares? This reads like a column in Gossip magazine! Cut out the stuff that's actually notable information (there's not a lot of it), and paste it in a related article. Delete the rest. Nightw 12:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and your definition of encyclopedic information is ?--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objective prose that explains why anybody should give a flying fuck, not just "he did this, then he did that, then he did something else that every politician does when visiting another country".
so now you are saying that every politician visiting a country wants that country to be a member of UNSC, signs 10 billion dollars worth trade agreements and gets to address joint session. Care to give one another example where this happened in last 50 years.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a UNSC bid is interesting, but it doesn't make it happen. He's not exactly the Secretary General is he? India doesn't get on the SC just because the president of another country "supports" their motive. We certainly don't need an article dedicated to an announcement for some guy saying he'll "support" something. Nightw 05:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the proof's in the pudding. Obama's now in South Korea and there's absolutely zero news articles today about his India trip. Clearly demonstrates that whatever coverage there was was merely WP:ROUTINE. To Wikireader, repeatedly saying "there is NO way in hell" this article will be deleted is, at best, a failure to AGF on the part of the delete camp and possibly the closing admin; at worst it's uncivil. Sure, it sucks to have an article you worked on nominated for deletion. But attacking the opposing camp just for that is clearly doing no one any favours. StrPby (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange passerby you might want to read WP:NTEMP. ongoing coverage is NOT required. clearly the visit to Indonesia and South Korea is generating lot less interest. which if anything adds to the argument that the India trip was not routine state visit. the reason I say that this article will not be deleted has more to do with standing wp policy that unless a "obvious consensus" to delete emerges the default is to keep the article. see WP:NotEarly. if anyone thinks that there is an obvious consensus to delete here I just have to disagree plain and simple.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing coverage isn't required? Are we no longer concerning ourselves with such trivialities? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lasting effect is quite evident in as much that long standing US policies were permanently reversed, 10 billion dollars worth of deals signed, 54K jobs created. what more WP:EFFECT do you think would satisfy you. a cure for cancer or an end to global hunger ?--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable visits by POTUS are not described as a "Landmark visit"[8] or an "extraordinary milestone"[9] by Reliable sources.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting in the first is from The Washington Post and the second is from The Hindu, a liberal-socialist Indian paper. Now, it wouldn't be in either of their commercial or national interests to exaggerate, would it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
again trying to decipher hidden bad motives here. Point is both are WP:RS extensively cited on wp. you could argue the other way round also that FOXNews did not go gaga over this as they are right wing republican leaning and other countries press is jealous as countries in Europe especially ( all going bankrupt) cant see a former colony get ahead of them. too bad wp just is not in the business of publishing WP:OR--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete People are delusional if they think this has any comparison whatsoever with the Nixon in China visit. Really quite ludicrous and I'm being generous. If my memory serves me well, there was a Barack Obama 2009 China Visit article that was created and later deleted. I don't even think a G-2 state visit would be worthy of an article unless something massive happens. If that was deleted then it seems evident that this should be too. 76.69.63.244 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
care to provide link to that deletion discussion. it sounds like a WP:OSE argument. I think people would be curious to see if such a discussion did actually take place. fortunately wp has a set of guidelines WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPTH and WP:EFFECT which tell us where a stand alone article is reasonable. this article meets all the guidelines. the deletionist are arguing that this is Routine News and should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Routine = course of normative, standardized actions or procedures that are followed regularly, often repetitiously. nothing regular or repetitious about this visit. and no we do not wait to write an article till "something massive happens". what if that something massive involved POTUS pressing the nuclear button ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People who have expressed a delete opinion are not necessarily "deletionists". Using such a term is highly inappropriate here. I appreciate you're unhappy that this discussion is taking place on "your" article but you need to stay cool and take a step back. The constant badgering of deletes, which has now escalated to name-calling, is not conducive at all. Please, Wikireader, the discussion will run its own course, and your constant rebuttals will not make the final verdict any different. Move on to something else. StrPby (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
same applies to you. I am sorry if you feel offended by the term deletionists. Maybe "editors !voting for delete" would be a better term. I will refrain from using the term deletionist. It was not my intention to use deletionist in a negative way ( I have myself voted for delete in many AfDs and would not mind being called deletionist on those AfDs one bit).--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wise to use a better term. Deletionist and inclusionist are terms use to imply that editors will vote a specific way due to their nature and not the underlying evidence. they are incredibly corrosive to discourse and we should avoid them. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2010 United States Presidential tour of Asia, retain content, and include material concerning Obama's visit to Indonesia, Japan etc. Nominations for "delete" are unconvincing (and, I strongly suspect, are politically motivated by wikipedia lobbyists coordinating their votes using off-wiki forums and mailing lists), given the wide coverage that this has received in mainstream media.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "politically motivated by wikipedia lobbyists coordinating their votes using off-wiki forums and mailing lists"?! That's a very serious charge to make without any evidence at all. You just weaken your own argument by making such baseless remarks. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • voicing suspicions is not the same as making a "serious charge". a more likely explanation might be apparent from a reading of WP:BIAS I quote "A lack of articles on particular topics is the most common cultural bias. Separately, both China and India have populations greater than all native English speakers combined; by this measure, information on Chinese and Indian topics should, at least, equal Anglophone topics; yet, Anglophone topics dominate the content of Wikipedia. While the conscious efforts of WikiProject participants have vastly expanded the available information on topics such as the Second Congo War, coverage of comparable Western wars remains much more detailed." I wonder if we would have been having this discussion if the country supported to UNSC was Canada or Australia--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        • Yes, we would. How many articles on US Presidential visits to Canada or Australia do we have? None. I find it abhorrent you're not distancing yourself from the anon's comments. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I second that. Unfounded (and, as far as I'm aware, untrue) allegations of improper collusion are uncivil and could be construed as a personal attack. As for whether we'd be having this discussion in the same circumstances for a Western, Anglophone country, yes we would, because I'd nominate it myself, but such are strawman arguments. Deleting this article will not somehow make systemic bias worse nor will keeping it somehow reduce systemic bias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Really. And how many times has POTUS gone to Australia and Canada and announced his support for their perm membership in UNSC , signed 10 billion in trade deals and called the relationship " defining relationship of 21st century" ?? None. the articles do not exist because this never happened for those countries. For US to support a country which is not a traditional ally is even more notable not less than Canada or Australia would be. are you saying that WP:BIAS does not exist and India ( and other non anglophone) countries are equally well represented on WP in terms of numbers and depth of articles?? please read WP:CSB which states and I quote "Be careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations. If you are not familiar with a subject area, or it has meaning outside your experience base, discuss your concerns on the talk page or another appropriate forum before making an AfD nomination.". I see no such discussion ever taking place. It would be a relatively easy matter to figure out ( from their edit histories) which editors here have experience ( and how much) working on India related articles ( prior to this AfD) and which ones dont.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • that's right. but "lots of things that happen in India" don't get opinion pieces in the likes of The Salt Lake Tribune [10],NY times[11] and LA times [12]. It is equally (if not more true) that countless notable events in India don't get an article because of WP:BIAS. Unfortunately access to internet is not the same in the country where 1 in 5 humans live. If we are to popularize WP in India the we need better coverage of India related events and issues. The fact that this article may not be of as much interest to some body sitting in Nuuk does not mean its not notable or of interest to others. article traffic stats can verify the ongoing interest --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the question here is not whether this is comparable to Nixons visit to china but whether this topic is notable enough to merit a stand alone article per WP:GNG. till recently US policy was not to support India on the issue of UNSC, MTCR and NSG membership. That is a verifiable fact. That has been turned 180 degrees now.--Wikireader41 (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point which escapes you is that that does not make the trip itself notable, it only makes the policy change notable, warranting a mention in the US-India relations article. The very fact that Nixon went to China at all is the heart of that article's notability. Do you begin to see the difference? Tarc (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No the fact that he went to India signed 10 billion in deals and then stood in front of Indian parliament and announced the change is at the heart of notability of this article ( was it a Quid pro quo ???). if he had just done a press release announcing this policy change at some other time I doubt that as many RS would have picked it up. IMO just the speech to the joint session of Indian parliament was notable enough to justify a stand alone article similar to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All of the justifications I have seen thus far as to why this is not a routine are not convincing. This was the sixth visit by a U.S. president to India? So what? The media likes to speculate about the implications of routine trips. Many of the same things were said about Barack Obama's 2010 visit to China, which was arguably more significant, but the article was still redirected to Sino-American relations. For those arguing that the United States' support for India's UNSC bid is significant (despite its support for many other countries' bids, and the fact that it's not likely to lead anywhere), that goes into the UNSC reform article. All significant trade deals go in the economy articles, all key developments go into the India-United States article, one paragraph at most. The rest is news. Quigley (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a !vote to Merge or to Delete ?? looks like you feel at least parts of info in the article need to be kept.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying 'merge' would imply that there is a lot more usable information in this article than there really is. India – United States relations#2010 visit by President Obama has an adequate summary of the visit, and a brief note (one or two sentences) can be made at India and the United Nations#UN Security Council; it doesn't have to be done with reference to this article. So, all that needs to be done is to delete this article. Quigley (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanx for clarifying. you also said that it was routine for POTUS to lead a trade delegation ( of 200 business leaders where 10 billion USD worth deals were signed). care to provide a reference where he did this last time? I also could not find any evidence for prior AfD of Barack Obama's trip to China. even tough it sounds like a WP:OSE argument I think it would be helpful for all to review what arguments were ( and were not) made there. could you provide a link to that AfD.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's not routine for the President to lead a delegation of exactly 200 business leaders and sign exactly 10 billion USD worth of trade deals. Not all visits are the same, but the general substance of these state visits are usually the same (and when they aren't, you won't need to argue about it). Barack Obama's trip to China didn't even need an AfD, as that page history shows, to be redirected. The policy is crystal clear, and I'm shocked that this AfD has been allowed to drag on for as long as it has. I just hope the reviewing administrator will not look at this AfD, as you say, as a tally of "!votes", but as a discussion where sound reasoning prevails. Quigley (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the admin who relisted will take your comments into consideration. since this is such a routine thing for POTUS to do, maybe you can give us an example where he led >100 business leaders and signed > 5 billion in trade deals on a foreign trip. I am not looking for exactly 200 business leaders and exactly 10 billion. if it is such a routine happening you should be able to give us specific examples of how this happens all the time ( on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis). I am not even getting into the issue of perm seat in UNSC for the sake of this argument. I too just hope the reviewing administrator will not look at this AfD, as you say, as a tally of "!votes", but as a discussion where sound reasoning prevails. I suspect he will.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. You can't say you "strongly" wish to see this article kept, and then say "per somebody else's comments". Nightw 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such a comment is perfectly reasonable. Please familiarize yourself with the norms of AfD before haranguing participants. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable and you're quite welcome to express your opinion and tell us how strong your opinion is, but just saying "strong keep" doesn't give your !vote any more weight. It's the strength of the argument that counts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm familiar with the process, thankyou. WP:AFD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Yes, everyone is welcome to express his or her opinion. But if Ret.Prof feels so "strongly" about it, I'd expect a bit more participation. Nightw 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantry over keep versus strong keep is unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Nightw 20:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ret Prof is mirroring the argument that I made. how would repeating my argument in his own language be any better ?? I think the basic reason is that this is not Routine news but a high profile state visit with well documented Effects. It has been called a Landmark visit by multiple RS including the The Age from Australia [13]. what National interest would an Australian newspaper have to exaggerate the importance of this visit ?? The bulk of Indian mainstream media described it either as a "Landmark visit or a "Historic visit".[14],[15],[16]. per BBC President of India Pratibha Patil also called the visit a "Historic milestone"[17]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
multiple RS describe this as a Landmark and Historic visit. None of them have described it as a Routine visit. please seemy comments above. your opinion that this was a routine visit is not echoed by RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources for notability, though I would rename as suggested to 2010 United States Presidential tour of Asia. It's significant because he's the president, not as a personal visit. The proper application of "systematic bias" is to say that if people are interested in writing in this detail about similarly important state visits outside the US, they should do so, but, given the demographics, it's reasonable to expect that certain regions will be better covered by our contributors. This is not overcoverage of the US, it's undercoverage of the rest of the world. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sure. looks like undercoverage of India has not escaped the eyes of Wikimedia foundation who are setting up their first non US office in India.[18] I think with time the Bias issues will improve but still a lot of work needs to be done. but looks like a beginning has been made.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept on systematic bias grounds, then that is an exciting precedent. Quigley (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can envisage a Paris Hilton's visit to Bondi Beach article popping up next. Nightw 10:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why not. if she can get a few editorials about it in the likes of New York Times, LA times, The Age etc. Then sign 10 billion in deals leading to American 50,000 jobs and of course get Indians to allow her to address the joint session of parliament I would be all for it and write the article myself. all we need would be a nice picture of her indulging in her favorite sport ;). seriously the point here is WP rules exist to have some kind of consistency across WP . right now we are debating this article while Falls of Cruachan derailment survived at WP:NOTNEWS inspired AfD and subsequent DRV with flying colors. classic WP:BIAS situation.--Wikireader41 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this the more I think that NOTNEWS doesn't even come close to prohibiting this article. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (events), it is clear this trip affects a 'large geographic scope'. It has resulted in 'in depth' coverage over a 'long duration', with numerous editorials in the US media alone and presumably the Indian media. A very large 'diversity of sources' supports notablity. I can't believe Wikireader is practically supporting this alone. This article clearly meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that this article isn't prohibited by a policy, but backed that opinion up only by citing a guideline. There has been no sustained coverage. Obama left India and dropped out of the headlines a few minutes later. Oh, and Wikireader, WP:BIAS is less applicable to your argument than, oh, WP:OTHERCRAP. Besides, how can you argue that a visit by an American president is the victim of systemic bias? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no sustained coverage'? Articles continue to be written about the trip one week later.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously objecting on the basis that an editor cites a guideline rather than a policy? (The guideline I cited is linked in the relevant policy). this is policy I believe--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if we should keep this, merge it to US-India Relations (probably the best option), delete it entirely, or what. I do know that this debate is a goddamn mess, for one, and that it's hard to imagine how consensus could emerge from it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus the article should be kept.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't bean-counting, though. I would hope that the pile of "keep its notable, in the news, bla bla" hand-waving will be downrated in the final consideration. This is the epitome of "not news", despite the article author's fevered protests to the contrary. Very few presidential visits overseas rise out of the mundane, and this one certain;t did not. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the delete arguments here are frankly ignoring the standards for notability, or ridiculously exaggerating them. This topic has clearly generated in depth coverage (e.g. editorials and op-ed columns in India, the US, and elsewhere) over a period of time (coverage continued after the trip was over) ofter a significant geographic scope (India and the US should easily qualify). All these arguments over whether what Obama did in India is notable ignores the notability of the trips media coverage (i.e. reliable sources). No, it was not a 'landmark' or 'historic' trip, but it was a 'notable' trip. That's enough. If the standards some people here are holding this article to were held across Wikipedia over half its articles would be deleted. Plus, does anyone possibly consider the fact that the article's info could be useful for students later studying Obama's presidency, or US-Indian relations, or whatever? Sure, the info could be merged, but the topic is reasonably self-contained and focused and an separate article makes sense.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Less than 10 percent of the article is even remotely encyclopaedic. About 50 percent is plain quote-after-quote from news articles. The rest is meaningless banter that reads like a gossip column: "He addressed the U.S.-India Business and Entrepreneurship Summit in Mumbai on November 6, 2010, after which, he paid homage to victims of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. During his Mumbai stay President Obama visited Mani Bhavan, the home of Mahatma Gandhi." Not important. If the entire article doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS, then a serious portion of it quite obviously does. The actual information here could be summarised in a single paragraph on the India – United States relations page. Nightw 17:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look at the article and see differently. There's a section on the address to the Indian parliament (how often does a head of state do that?). There's a section on trade deals with some pretty significant numbers mentioned. There's a section on the reaction of several countries by their foreign ministers. Reasonable stuff for an encyclodia. But we can argue forever whether the content is notable or not. Go read Wikipedia:Notability (events). Tell me how this article topic doesn't have a large geographic scope, isn't supported by a diversity of sources, or isn't covered in depth.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, heads of state address foreign parliaments all the time. Here is an article posted 11 hours ago reporting one such instance. This isn't some once-in-a-lifetime event. Nightw 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was how often do heads of state address the Indian parliament. You linked an address to the Mozambique parliament--a somewhat less significant event. It has be well established in this discussion that most heads of state do not get the privilege of addressing the Indian parliament (the parliament representing the world's largest democracy). Plus, your still not addressing my question of how this event has not met Wikipedia's standards of a)geographic scope, b) diversity of sources, and c) depth of coverage. Plus, articles continue to be written about it after the trip is over, establishing a significant duration of coverage. Johnsemlak (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? Shinzo Abe addressed the Indian parliament in 2007. Before him, Vladimir Putin and Bill Clinton both did it on separate occasions in 2000. I don't know how closely you've been following "this discussion", but it certainly has not been "well established" that this some rare event, and if it has, that was obviously a mistake. Diversity of sources? Online media articles and ... Oh. Nightw 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three times a decade seems pretty uncommon to me. Certainly not 'routine'. And many heads of state are denied such a privelege. Regarding your objection to WP:DIVERSE, have you read the criteria? How does this article or topic not fulfill it?--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indian parliament address ( to a joint session) is indeed a rare event. and notability is not temporary. to all those arguing that coverage has dropped off please read WP:NTEMP which is a guideline and states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." the WP:EFFECT of this visit is certainly not temporary. and at least one of the editors here ( HJ Mitchell) voted to Keep Falls of Cruachan derailment and thinks this visit is less notable than that derailment and worthy of deletion. Give me a break. if this is not WP:BIAS then I dont know what is. TIME had 4 separate dedicated articles on this visit [19], [20], [21] and [22]. what percentage of WP event articles have this degree of notability. this event is not only notable but more notable than 90% of WP articles. not too long ago we had Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom on the main page "in the news" section. just like that visit was notable so is this one ( even more so).--Wikireader41 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the derailment was more notable. Zero British people died. Meanwhile, this visit affected zero British people.
Seriously now, I think the last time a sitting president address a foreign national legislature must be Bush's 2003 address to the Congress of the Philippines in joint special session. The last U.S. president who address the Philippine Congress was... Dwight Eisenhower. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HTD, can you say roughly how often any head of state addresses the Congress of the Philippines?--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from those two (Eisenhower and Bush) I haven't heard of anyone else. Clinton visited twice in the 1990s but he did not address Congress. Having a joint special session is sorta rare too. It only happens during a State of the Nation Address, canvassing of votes in a presidential election and for declaration of martial law. Bush (or any foreign head of state) addressing Congress in joint special session must've been remarkably rare. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People arguing that this article should be delated as a 'routine' state visit should browse some of the articles on Wikipedia. We have an article on the 1974 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament that apparently is not 'routine' (held every year but anyway). personally think there should be more articles on state visits by important heads of state (not just US presidents of course). --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look again at the policies and guidelines:

  • WP:NOTNEWS. The only examples cited in the policy as breaking this policy are routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There's no way this topic fall under these examples. This article clearly passes this criteria, or at least does not fail it.
  • WP:EFFECT It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate either as to the long term effects of course. There is ample evidence, however, in the present of teh effects of the trip. Numerous trade deals were signed that will create or affect thousands of jobs. At least 4 goverments released official reactions to the trip. That's fairly significant. Plus, there's Obama's support of India for the UNSC. I think it's reasonable to suppose that this will be remembered, and referred to for some time. While the trip did not result in a dramatic shift in US-India relations, the trip clearly had an affect. This article clearly does not fail this guideline.
  • WP:GEOSCOPE. This is pretty straightforward, with two very large countries affected and reactions from Brazil, China and other countries. The article clearly passes.
  • WP:INDEPTH. From the criteria--In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). . Many articles meeting that description have been cited above. Clear pass.
  • WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Again, we can't know either way whether this will be covered a year from now. But the trip has been over for a week, and is still generating published coverage from reliable sources: [23]. The article doesn't fail this one and I believe passes. Again, I think its' reasonable to suppose that Obama's support of India to the UNSC will be referred to in the future in significant contexts.
  • WP:DIVERSE From the criteria: Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source.[2] A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article. This article clearly has a diversity of sources from different media organizations and different countries. Clear pass.
  • WP:OTHERCRAP This essay, which is not policy or a guideline, is inconclusive about whether the lack of articles on state visits is an argument for or against deletion. The essay clearly goes both ways. Also, as I indicated above, there are clearly many articles on wikipedia that are far less significant that this one. There's no way this can be an argument for delete.

Obviously, many people will look at my interpretations of the above policies, guidelines, and other criteria differently. But I really think when it comes down to it this ariticle is a no-brainer keep. I just can't see how anyone who looks at it objectively can really say otherwise--that it would fail all or even most of the above criteria.

The opposition seems to boil down to a couple of arguments: 1) state visits are not normally notable enough for an WP article. I ask, why not? I think perhaps there should be more such articles. They are clearly more notbale than say an article for each and every episode of Star Trek IMO. IN any case I see Obama's India visit as more notable than the Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom as cited above. As long as each article is forced to meet criteria such as those listed above, state visits represent signficant history between nations and should be worthy of articles. 2) Just because Obama did it, it's not notable. Well, ok, that's reasonable. That's why we have criteria such as those listed above to determine what actions of Obama are notable. It also seems ot me that no matter what sources Wikireader cites, peoeple opposers simply ignore them, coming up with reasons in no way backed up by policy or guidelines.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're well-aware of where you and Wikireader stand by now, there's no need to rehash over and over and over and respond over and over and over to every new participant in the discussion. The same way I and others dismiss it as a run-on-the-mill, presidential everyday overseas trip, and Facepalm Facepalm at the attempt to attach possibly notable announcement of agreements and such to the trip itself. We're due for a closing tomorrow, and the closing admin is already going to have to wade thru 90k of sewage. Let's just all stop making their job more difficult. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well an admin in all his sagacity relisted this AfD so I think they will be patient to go through what you think is "Sewage". I am pretty confident what the outcome will be. It is clear that we do not have different sets of notability criteria for different people. Just because Obama is POTUS does not mean his actions need to be held to a (much) higher standard of notability and I am pretty sure that the closing admin will agree. In his official capacity it is easier for him to do notable things much more regularly than any of us but that doesn't make his notable actions routine. Thanx Tarc anyway for contributing to the "sewage".--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama%27s_visit_to_India&oldid=1137596864"