Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush's pretzel

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, possibly merge; rename to 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident for now. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:49Z

[edit] George W. Bush's pretzel

George W. Bush's pretzel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Created to insert a bigger "controversy" about George W. Bush. There are alot of significant events in this biography but they don't get as much attention compared to what this person is giving regarding "George W. Bush's pretzel". ViriiK 09:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. wikipedia is not paper. It is not the topic's fault that the topic attracted a wikipedian. If we start discriminating by importance, wikipedia will be in big trouble `'mikka 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Nlu (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep As long as the article is NPOV and has sources I see no reason for deletion. Could be moved, merged and/or renamed, but that is a different discussion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge to George W. Bush. I had never even heard of this incident before, and at most it seems like 2 or 3 sentences is enough for the article. TJ Spyke 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the article is sourced and appears to be NPOV, but I do have to ask... does this event really mean anything for George W Bush? Or for Pretzels? This appears to be dredged out a small series of news stories occuring in a very short space of time, with nothing appearing afterwards. The proposed Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline elaborates on how and why such articles can be inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional. There is only one inbound wikilink to this article, a seealso in the president-rabbit article. A look at the talk page doesn't seem too hot on the inclusion of this event in the article, even as a wikilink. -- saberwyn 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not support the nominator's opinion that this was somehow created to increase controversy and feel the nom should be warned for casting unproven aspersions against other editors (unless there is proof this article was in fact created with the alleged intent). However unlike the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, the Bush-choking-on-pretzel event was a far less notable incident and one that has not really had the same pop culture impact. 23skidoo 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep I can see no good reasons to delete this, especially as it is already NPOV with some good references. --Apyule 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but possible merge/rename If the article is sourced and NPOV per Wiki guidelines I see no reason to delete - however there may be a case for renaming it or moving to a George Bush incident page. If per the nominator there are other incidents which deserve more attention, then if these could be identified a subpage could be created incorporating all such events, including this one. I also feel that unless some justification can be given for the accusation of stoking up controversy the nominator should be warned for assuming bad faith. Addyboy 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the incident drew a large amount of media attention/imagination making it a good idea for WP to have a concise collection of all the facts as a historical event...yet at the same time, it would be ridiculous to put three paragraphs on the incident in the actual George W. Bush article. As creator, find it odd that nominator accuses me of being politically-motivated to attack Carter in the Jimmy Carter's rabbit AFD...then accuses me of being politically motivated to attack Bush in the George W. Bush's pretzel AFD they also started. Do I just hate everybody? :PSherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back in to George W. Bush. The event may have been newsworthy and the article may be NPOV and sourced. Unlike the Lewinsky scandal, for example, which was a major event and had lasting consequences for Bill Clinton there really isn't much to be said about the whole pretzel choking thing that cannot be accomplished with a small section in the parent article. All it really amounts to is a bit of presidential trivia and some joke fodder. Arkyan 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Noteworthy incident, with numerous stories over an extended period, and has become a meme with respect to Bush's Presidenct as was the killer rabbit to Carter's. Several deletion arguments are of the "IDONTIKEIT" or "INEVERHEARDOFIT" variety and fail in the light of abundant covereage in reliable sources which satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT and even the proposed WP:NOTNEWS . Edison 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the newsworthy nature of the event which involved a U.S president.--JForget 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Of course its "newsworthy", its the President of the United States. If Air Force One lands somewhere or the president does something, its in the news. Seriously, CNN had a short report recently about the president's plane landing at Andrews AFB, its home base. Just because an article can be written about something doesn't necessarily mean it should. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep anything that almost kills a president is worthy of an article. Nardman1 01:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename or Merge, notable and referenced, but the article name seems a bit tacky. Possibly a merge into Bush's article or even a pretzel article. The article does need to be cleaned up though. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Chainsaw-Merge if you're feeling nice, Delete if you're feeling cranky. Not all "noteworthy incidents" need their own articles - we're not a news service (did Wikinews cover this? No? Why are we doing that, then?). I'd be more willing to keep this as a separate article if there were, say, a few books examining the controversy, media reaction and the implications to the world politics, and several media mentions depicting this specific incident in retrospect as "one of the lowest point of GWB's career", or something. You know, something that would give the picture that this had tons of impact or something and that every man, woman and child on this planet should give a darn. People have slight brushes with death all the time - if the guy had died on that, that would have probably been remarkable. This, however... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And if kept, please move it to 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (or whatever, just to get it a little bit closer to what the naming conventions dictate) and add it to WP:UA, as this is clearly something Britannica wouldn't ever cover. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with George W. Bush. I seriously don't think this is notable enough to have its own article, but perhaps its notable enough to put in the main GWB article. --Deskana (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lampman 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Everyking 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment According to the article, he didn't go to the hospital and it didn't affect his plans. I would hardly say "it nearly killed him." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not a reason for deletion. This was notable and interesting, and WP:NOT paper. JRG 02:58, 16 March 2007 (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.