Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. The option of merging the content to George W. Bush or Public perception of George W. Bush was noted in the discussion, but no consensus for a merge emerged. Any attempt to merge the content should consider the length of the target article and the principles stated in the "Undue weight" section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident

[edit]
AfDs for this article: First nomination, closed 2007-03-18
2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An article on someone choking on a pretzel is not an encyclopedic topic. Yes, it was in the news media. The news media reports every time the President says or does anything. If the only question is notability, then we ought to have articles on 2006 Florida Gator football team visits the White House, George W Bush's trip to High School XYZ, or List of people whose hand George W Bush shook at the 2004 State of the Union address. While all of those may be subject matter for WikiNews, Wikipedia is not WikiNews. This was a single event in President Bush's life - to be honest it's an event I had never even heard about until I saw a report about it on BLPN on my watchlist. This event is a news story. It is not an encyclopedia article.

The previous AFD considered only notability. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way. Yes, there were multiple non-trivial news media mentions of it. That is not in question. Nobody doubts that. But not everything notable or newsworthy belongs in an encyclopedia.

Since the first AFD, WP:NOT has been expanded to clarify that Wikipedia isn't the place for news reporting. A mistake was made in the previous AFD - it's time to correct it. BigDT 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Note to closing admin - we seem to have had some canvassing on this RFA Spartaz Humbug! 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional canvassing here here here here here here & here — Athaenara ✉ 09:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note to closing admin - this is not canvassing. The user contacted people who made their views known in the last discussion on this topic and asked if their views had changed or not, to comment either way. The user in question did not ask those people specifically to vote against the proposal. Please do not disregard the comments of those people who have been notified. JRG 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As JRG points out, the "canvassing" consisted of notifying people who had voted on the first nomination for deletion - they had already voted on the matter, I was just ensuring their voice was still heard and they were aware that "people" were going with the "keep trying till you manage to get it deleted because nobody's paying attention" approach. Nobody was contacted who hadn't already voted on the issue of this article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you also notified the people who voted for deletion as well, it is canvassing. - Crockspot 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) And I just checked, you only notified the keep voters. That is classic canvassing, and dirty pool on your part. Shame on you. - Crockspot 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Crockspot 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - After looking at it, I would support delete of that article too. It's poorly sourced, and I thought this was proven to be a hoax long ago... could be wrong there. - Crockspot 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rabbit incident wasn't a hoax, I know that for sure. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - It may be notable, and may be encyclopedic (I'm not making those judgments at this time), but there is no reason that this information needs its own article. If deemed encyclopedic, it should be in the George W. Bush article. There is also the problem of BLP patrol monitoring, since this is not Bush's biography proper, editors refuse to allow the BLP patrol to properly monitor this article by adding the category that we use to monitor such articles. This allows a fork such as this to go on unmonitored by BLPP, which could lead to serious abuse of WP:BLP. - Crockspot 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No historical significance, Wikipedia is not a news source, and not encyclopedic at any level. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - Per Crockspot above. --Tom 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How much more difficult can it be when there are now over 1K articles that link to Bush. Anyone of them may contain information that violates BLP. The argument is a red herring.
  • Keep If its covered by multiple independent sources it is as notable as Dick Cheney shooting his best friend. Wikipedians don't bestow notability subjectively, the media does in what is chooses to cover. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete - The incident seems more of a footnote (interesting at that) than a separate article. As such I would merge it into the main article. It has some merit in wondering how a president can get in such condition without attracting more attention. If the merge is not an option, then I believe its significance bears lightly compared to the mountains of information to archive for future generations. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting trivia and newsworthy (like most everything else a sitting US President does). However, it's simply not notable enough to merit its own article: maybe a line in another article on Bush, but the incident lacks the enduring significance we ought to expect from an encyclopedic subject. Biruitorul 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is simply not worth separate coverage. The health of a President is usually covered exhaustively by the press. This does not mean that an individual article on each daily blemish is warranted.DGG 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, we dont even have an article on Eisenhower's heart attack, and that was truly significant. DGG 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to this argument is always the same: OK, you write it. Wikipedia is fundamentally incomplete; you can't base an argument on what other people have neglected to do so far. Everyking 05:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not a significant event in the context of, well, anything. --Haemo 11:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for god's sake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mongo, DGG, etc... above. It's mere trivia and not-encyclopedic. Eusebeus 07:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When a President passes out, hits his head on a coffee table, and requires medical attention, it is more significant than "Visit to High School X." This potentially serious incident which led to bruising has been been written about many times in the last 5 years. It goes beyond a simple news story and has become a meme. The Carter "rabbit attack" is well documented, even from sources in the Carter administration, and there is even a photo of the incident. No reason not to have articles on each. Substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources satisfies WP:N. Edison 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
  • Note 1: With the image gone, this article looks like exactly what it is: a tiny and trivial item. It should be a single referenced line in the George W. Bush article: "In 2002, Bush was mocked for choking on a pretzel…" — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: The same applies to the rabbit: delete the images (both in a reference cited there) and remove the image in the Jimmy Carter article where that incident is a single referenced line: "During his campaign, Carter was mocked for an encounter with a rabbit…" — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the rabbit article, two of the images are public domain. The third is a fair use image of a news clipping being used for critical commentary about the clipping itself as opposed to being used simply because it happens to illustrate the subject. That use may be good or bad, but it is not flagrant copyright infringement as the photo in this article was. --BigΔT
  • Keep, I never understand people who claim these articles "attack" the President...as somebody else pointed out, it's pretty much identical to Jimmy Carter's rabbit - something that people are likely to google, and find there is no definitive source on what happened - just a lot of late-night comedy show hosts making wisecracks about. Wikipedia gathering all sources on an event thus provides clear, NPOV details of what did happen. I also challenge the Good Faith of clearly misrepresenting the first nomination for AfD (which failed by a considerable margin) just to make it easier to dismiss - anyone actually reading it will see it is not what User:BigDT has said it is at all, it dealt with the exact same issues this AfD brings up. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Attacking" the President has nothing to do with anything. It's a news story and we aren't WikiNews. If this news story is worthy of an encyclopedia article, why not George W Bush's visit to a Bulgarian hospital? --BigΔT 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is unlikely people will google for details of Bush's visit to a Bulgarian hospital, unless there was some conspiracy theory or "truly bizarre" twist to the story - this on the other hand, attracted a great deal of attention, is still mentioned by television hosts, etc - and like Jimmy Carter's rabbit is the only online source that actually brings together all the known information about the event and encapsulates it for the reader. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what is all of that known information? The man choked on a pretzel, for crying out loud, something that happens to countless people across the world every day. True, this isn't a political attack, it's something far worse. This is tantamount to celebrity gossip. Essentially something incredibly ordinary, albeit slightly embarassing, happened to a famous public figure, so a bunch of people act like it's meaningful. It doesn't matter if it got news coverage, it doesn't matter if people still google it. It's nothing more that a trivialdetail about something that happened to a famous person, and is neither unique to this person, nor does it have a strong bearing on anything Calgary 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm not sure if a merge is at all possible, as I almost suggested in the previous AfD. I stand by what I said then: We're not a news site and this is basically a minor incident without a lasting impact. It's probably an interesting anecdote that, in a couple of decades, Bush keeps rambling about in the retirement home, but it's not encyclopaedia material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not opposed to merge -- The newsworthiness of the incident, the fact that it was potentially life-threatening, the extensive press coverage, the weird jokes Bush made about it, the impact on popular culture, all make it a very notable event. BenB4 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Doesn't really matter that it made Dubya look like a jackass. If it was just Bush forgetting how to chew his food it wouldn't be notable, but like Jimmy Carter's rabbit it was made notable by the place the incident gained in pop culture, the media response and the spin revolving around it. Elmo 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be in wikinews, because its an isolated event. Corpx 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability will only lessen with time and it is not notable now. I see no reason to keep this. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information.--MONGO 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirty years later, people still talk about Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit. Burr isn't known for anything *except* his duel these days...let's not pass judgment on what history will or won't remember. The President of the United States draws reference to it in his speeches, comedians still bring it up incessantly...face it, people are going to be googling to find out what the hell the "straight dope" is on the story. Wikipedia is where they should expect to be able to find the answer. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These are specious arguments on the part of the creator of the two incident articles. Even a quick read of the Aaron Burr article reveals the "isn't known for anything *except*" claim is false. If "people are going to be googling" to find the Straight Dope, it's there. If "Wikipedia is where they should expect to be able to find the answer," single well referenced lines in the JCarter and GWBush bios serve that purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 20:34, 2 July 2007 (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/2002_George_W._Bush_pretzel_incident_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137512663"