Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidential names

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. WjBscribe 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidential names[edit]

This article completely lacks of encyclopedic content. All it has is a list of nicknames that could perfectly be added to the introduction of the article on each president. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 17:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sub-page was unlisted; I listed it. --Iamunknown 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly unsourced trivia. Resolute 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the nicknames are unsourced POV. For example, under Bill Clinton is the nickname The Big Creep, which is not sourced and undeniably POV. If we're going to include nicknames like this, there must be a reliable source using the nickname. Another example with the same problems is the nickname The Wimp President for George H. W. Bush. There has to be a source cited for every nickname, but the problem is that a lot of the nicknames are inherently POV. As for the rest of the article, this is stuff that can easily be included in the main articles of each president (and may already be included there, I haven't checked). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only are the bulk of the nicknames unsourced POV, but even some of the explanations ("surely the cruellest Presidential nickname", "vengeful terms of the Treaty of Versailles") contain unattributed opinions which are by definition POV. Any actual attributable nicknames could be mentioned on the subject's page. (Also, what's next with US presidentcruft: list of US presidents listed by the surnames of their dental hygienists?) --Charlene 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the merits having such a list: Presidential trivia is a well-established area of research, and nicknames and name origins are valid items to accumulate in an encyclopedia - not only on each President's page, but organized in its own article. Like the virtually unsourced places of birth, previous occupation, and their pets, as well as quite a few others found here.. So although this list needs work, it is valid, and nothing at all like "the surnames of their dental hygienists". Tvoz |talk 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's an indiscriminate list of trivia. POV. Seed 2.0 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep at present: first, this nomination was not properly noted in edit summary - the edit summary for the nomination notice in fact was blank - so people who edit the page (which I have not in the past) would have no idea that it is even being nominated, and would not come over here to comment. That is not fair to the three and a half years of work of dozens of editors. Furthermore, I suggest removing this premature nomination in favor of a request for cleanup and citations - there was no notice on the page prior to this deletion nomination. Clearly the page needs citation work - as do many - but questions should be raised, and a reasonable amount of time given, to editors to locate citations before nominating for deletion. This nomination is an abuse of the system. Tvoz |talk 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:AFD: "Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead" Tvoz |talk 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with the article except the unsourced information. A lot of the nicknames given to the more recent Presidents are not used very often. Articles like this give a good comparison with the other Presidents. This article was expanded so it wasn't just about nicknames at it originally was. It is not necessary to delete this page, but maybe some of the unnecessary nicknames. Jjmillerhistorian 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I contributed some of these nicknames. When I added "The Smirking Chimp" for Bush II, I felt compelled to remark on the cruelty of the nickname, POV or not. Nevertheless, I was also responsible for that remark about the terms of the Treaty of Versailles being "vengeful" - and if that has not already been deleted, I will do so right now because I agree that it was far too POV. I see this as one of the less serious entries in the Encyclopedia. Surely there is room for a little bit of fun trivia in Wikipedia? As someone pointed out, nicknames, by their very nature express POV. But unless this article actually invents nicknames - which it does not - these nicknames tell us a little about how past presidents were seen by their contemporaries. Details like that (in a very minor way, of course) add flavor to our history. On the notion that these nicknames could easily be added to the entry for the relevant president - I do not think that this would always work. I suggested adding George Bush Senior's (recorded but rarely used) nickname of "Old Read-My-Lips" to his Wikipedia entry. The creator of the page respectfully declined this idea. The article on Ronald Reagan is very biased in favor of the subject: no point in even asking for "Bonzo" to be added there. To some high-minded people writing a biography of a president for an encyclopedia, nicknames are stuff and nonsense that have no place in the scheme of things. I beg to differ from this austere verdict. Trivia can sometimes be a little interesting and educational. A little bit.

Flonto 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't sell yourself or the list short Flonto, this is more than trivia it's American History. Anynobody 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Encyclopedic and salvageable in principle but too easy to turn into a POV cesspoool. Sourcing each name is not really enough. Sourcing a name only means that somebody, somewhere, used it in print. ("The Big Creep" was an affectionate nickname given to Clinton by Monica Lewinsky and should be easy to source, FWIW). There's some value to a list of nicknames that actually got traction with the public but it's likely to be difficult to document that. 75.62.7.22 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons to delete are not compelling or insurmountable. SchmuckyTheCat 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flonto Bucketsofg 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If there are errors with nicknames either fix or remove the nicknames, deleting the list (which is accurate and now referenced so everyone can see) would be an extreme solution to a minor problem. (Akin to cutting one's head off to cure a headache). Anynobody 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - certainly isn't unencyclopedic, and contains more than enough sources. Notability means that it relies on reliable and notable sources - which is the case here. Sfacets 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - This seems to be meticulously sourced to multiple reputable citations. Note: I was notified of the existence of this AFD on my talk page. Smee 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is simply not feasible. It could never be fully sourced and never complete. Like 75.62.7.22 said above, could easily turn into a POV cesspool. I don't think the article is important enough to even keep a watch on. Wikidan829 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a list of nicknames might also be added to the articles about each president, such additions would not fulfil the purpose of collecting them together on a single page; this does. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A serious encyclopedia will want to cover even the trivia associated with the most important, most serious subjects, and the U.S. presidency is obviously extremely important. We should want to cover the trivia associated with it because it has a serious side to it -- how others relate to the president. Show me an article about trivia related to presidents that has no serious "side" (that is, the potential for gaining some useful insight) and I'll support deleting it ("Length of presidential toenails" for instance). Noroton 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Indiscriminate list of trivia that can never be fully sourced. Contrary to statements made by others here, most of these nicknames are NOT properly sourced, and furthermore, if we use the article's given criteria and definition of nickname (the Wikipedia article nickname), then the sky's the limit and we can add nearly any nonsense that pops into our heads. (The Bush-meister! Bush-a-roonie! Bushy-wushy! The Shrubster! Old Alky-boy!) As it stands now, I have no reason to believe that most of these alleged nicknames are factual. In fact, there's nothing stopping me or you or anyone else from getting drunk and making up new ones all night long and posting them... did you know that Eisenhower was known to some as "Baldboy"? Or that Calvin Coolidge's mom called him "Old Brown Britches"? Or that in some circles, Clinton had the affectionate nickname "Dr. Eggnog"? wikipediatrix 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is not indiscriminate. As you can see if you look at the recent article history, several editors are in the process of going through the nickname portion of the article and adding and checking references - and there were quite a few references already in place before this AFD prematurely launched. No one is making up nicknames along those lines - those that survive the current edit process exist in articles and transcripts of broadcasts for those in recent years; others in biographies, etc. There now is a tag on the article requesting better sourcing - that process is underway. Deletion without prior warning is an extreme measure for what is barely a problem. Tvoz |talk 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is still criteria and definition. What IS a nickname exactly, for purposes of this list? If, say, Mona Charen called Ronald Reagan "Old Brylcreem Head" once and only once in a newspaper column in 1981, is that sufficient criteria to be included here? wikipediatrix 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presidential trivia, especially nicknames, is highly notable and of much interest. Yes, more sources need to be added, but deletion is not the first step. Much work has been done since the nomination was discovered and this has the makings of a strong list/article. Keep to allow cleanup and sourcing. - auburnpilot talk 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the sources are in the books under References, maybe that could be linked better. This is a good article and there probably more nicknames which could be added. Jjmillerhistorian 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Nicknames have played a large role in every American presidential campaign. The article is part of our coverage of presidential history - a major scholarly field. It is essential that it remain. --JJay 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list shouldn't be comprehensive, it should include the monikers with regular and broad usage throughout a sustained period of time. It needs clean up, not deletion. --66.41.102.194 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wikipediatrix. Arbustoo 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. ^Px_Ma 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AuburnPilot's convincing argument. NoSeptember 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Justification for deletion seems to be the meaningless criticism that it is lacks "encyclopedic content," and the assertion that the information could appear elsewhere. Neither is justification for or even a good argument for deletion. This is one of the more useful lists on Wikipedia, and, as of now, it's very well-sourced, far more so than most featured articles. Calbaer 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Plenty of good references on this page, and the ones that don't should be removed. But the article has good reason to remain. - Chardish 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - people are still voting keep - and even strong keep - even though it still hasn't been determined what the criteria and the fundamental premise of the article even IS. What IS a nickname, precisely, for the purposes of this article? It has not been defined here and could be literally anything that anybody has ever said about a President that doesn't involve their real name. In other words, you people are voting keep for a list when you don't even know what it's a list of. wikipediatrix 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a valid discussion for the talk page of the article, not a reason to delete. Tvoz |talk 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm talking about the notability of the fundamental premise of the article itself, not its content. wikipediatrix 17:22, 4 May 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.