Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worst president ever

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worst president ever

Delete. Inherently POV. Prodded but contested. Hbackman 04:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, you really don't need to do that bolded "delete" thing. It doesn't add anything to your nomination, and may confuse newbies into thinking that AfD is a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

...yeah, that's a good point. Sorry. Hbackman 05:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A6 as attack page - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't agree that it is inherently POV. There does seem to be an increased usage of the phrase for this president, which can be presented without bias. However, as it stands, it certainly doesn't need it's own article. -user:rasd
• Delete Much as I despise the guy, I'm not sure this merits an article. I doubt Bush is the only one considered to have been the worst president ever (and there are many presidents besides the POTUS). I don't think the article qualifies for Speedy deletion as an attack page; WP does have similar sorts of articles like Films considered the worst ever. Possibly smerge some content to George W. Bush but without a redirect; the Rolling Stone article is mentioned there already but I think the HNN articles are more significant. Keep a mention in Miserable failure but unlink it. Шизомби 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Nowhere in the aricle is it asserted that Bush is the worst, so the "attack page" argument is as bogus as is the POV argument. The article addresses the origins and usage of the phrase, a phrase which gets 519,000 Google hits, and is backed up with several articles from professional historians. Films considered the worst ever-- obviously and inherently POV-- gets an article, as does miserable failure, but a discussion of the history and usage of this phrase doesn't? There's obviously a double-standard at work. Rizzleboffin 06:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as inherently POV. Some people have called Clinton, and Bush Sr., and Reagan, and Carter, and other presidents the worst president ever. While the article as currently written does not assert that George W. Bush is the worst president ever, it discusses the belief that he is the worst president ever without considering any other possibilities. And as soon as the next president is inaugurated, some of his or her political opponents will call that person the worst president ever. --Metropolitan90 06:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility (e.g. the "great president" Google bomb which redirects to the Bush biography) was in the article until just before it was recommended for deletion. Also, there is nothing to prevent further possibilities from being discussed, including discussions of any and all other presidents who have been, and still are considered the worst, if that is seen as the article's offense. As a matter of fact, it sounds to me like a very interesting area to investigate, though ultimately a futile one for a Wikipedia article if such thoughts are to be censored here. I came onto this article as a little, obviously POV stub, but thought it had informational value and hoped to shape it into a NPOV discussion of the phrase and its history. If a discussion of who professional historians consider to be the worst president is taboo, how about the best? Rizzleboffin 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Warren G. Harding. No, just kidding. I think the best thing to do here would be to move the article to Presidents considered the worst ever and merge this article into a George W. Bush subhead. This is, really, a notable and verifiable topic, and there are plenty of well-cited expert opinions on the subject. (And, believe me, there will certainly be a section on Harding) --Hyperbole 06:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a workable solution to me, Hyperbole. Rizzleboffin 06:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Very unlikely that it would ever be NPOV. --Icarus 07:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to George W. Bush. I agree, this article never states that Bush is the worst president ever, only that some people say he is. JIP | Talk 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and start over No page-protection, no redirect. Start over again. This time, NPOV, and working with the "Worst President Ever" Googlebomb. Heck, if someone can walk me through how to create a subpage in userspace, I'll rewrite the thing. Captainktainer * Talk 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You just put a slash on and then your title: User:Captainktainer/Worst president ever (draft). If you want, you can start by copying the current text into that link, so that the edit history will show all your changes. JamesMLane t c 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Historical rankings of United States Presidents -- Plutor 13:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Editing my vote: after speedily deleting for A6, extend a redirect to Googlebomb - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still one of those confused newbies at Wikipedia referred to above, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around the intricacies of the NPOV policy. Apparently an article on the Historical rankings of United States Presidents is neutral, but an article on which presidents are ranked worst is an "attack article" and inherently POV. I'd be tempted to look at this historical ranking article in depth to see how the rankings are achieved with there being no best and no worst... But it dawns on me that I came to Wikipedia to avoid exactly this sort of nonsense in political forums. Guess I'll stick to film, cartoons and music articles. Rizzleboffin 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under CSD-A6. I don't like him either to be honest, but it's a attack page that shouldnt be on wikipedia. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I still question whether and why it could be considered an attack page. If people think the idea of an article on Presidents considered the worst ever has merit, then a move may be in order, although be sure first whether it should be a page on Presidents or United States Presidents. Шизомби 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Googlebomb. --Hetar 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an attack page. I absolutely despise GWB, but this article is an attack, pure and simple. It shouldn't be a redirect, and it shouldn't be a discussion (which would be completely POV). It should just be deleted. -- Kicking222 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article's stated intent to delve into various Presidents is ridiculous, because ALL Presidents have been, at some point, thought to be the "worst President ever" in someone's opinion. Even JFK was widely hated by a considerable segment of the population. One might as well just merge with List of Presidents of the United States. wikipediatrix 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your implication seems to be that since all presidents have been disliked by someone, we must ignore the considered and educated opinions of non-partisan professional historians. Apparently objectivity and neutrality have long since been abandoned in the decision to delete this article. But allow me to point out that the article does not present just someone's opinion, but the opinion of professional historians, supported by articles eloquently explaining the reasons for their opinion. The article is open to present further opinions of professional historians on other presidents who have been legitimately considered the worst. NOT presidents considered worst only by partisans on the other political side. For the record, here is the quote from the article this morning (anyone is free to modify, improve, and add to it as they see fit): This article will go on to discuss the history of the term "worst president ever," which Presidents professional historians (not bickering partisans) have generally considered the worst, and their reasons for doing so.-- Rizzleboffin 17:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound as if this article is some lofty and scholarly historical analysis. In fact, it's an three-paragraph-long article entirely devoted to George W. Bush and a Googlebomb. And regardless, why do we need a history of the term "Worst President Ever"? What's next, a history of the term "Worst Senator Ever"? "Best Coffee Ever"? "My head hurts"? "Boy, I hate Mondays"? wikipediatrix 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Inherently POV, and not encyclopedic. --Durin 18:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete irredemably POV --Bachrach44
• Delete Ignoring all POV issues, Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes, nor does this article conform to an encylopedic format. --Eyaw Nayr 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no intent on recreation - I added the prod to this article because the topic cannot be discussed neutrally, it is just a biased topic. slasher600 (talk · contribs)Slasher600 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant or merge This topic is inherently redundant to Historical rankings of United States Presidents, which is a more neutral title, and also in much better shape. Best/worst is a value judgement, and it is better to use a non-value laden title. GRBerry 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Bachrach44 : Librarianofages 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV. At least for now, he's not even considered the "worst president ever" by historians; that honor goes to Warren G. Harding. BryanG 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NPOV. --Slgrandson 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, article could be expanded to other countries, but due political affiliations of reporters, editors, etc, every president of every country could be added. It would be impossible to keep such article neutral. -- ReyBrujo 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see how it can be saved from the POV hole it's in. Even with sources, it just comes off as an attack article on the current sitting president (who, by this very position, is considered the worst president ever by somebody). An article on presidential rankings, discussing presidents who have been voted worst ever by scholarly and popular polls might have merit (if one doesn't already exist) but this isn't it. The phrase doesn't even have Internet meme or catchphrase equity. 23skidoo 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice per Metropolitan90. If someone wants to start over, they had better well cover all the other candidates - Herbert Hoover, Franklin Pierce, and Warren G. Harding have a few bad things to be said about them, I understand. See Historical rankings of United States Presidents. AnonEMouse 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. I'm sure that at some point in time, some people have considered every president to be the worst ever. Zaxem 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reads like an essay, seems to be original research, even though it uses citations. Andjam 08:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not overly worried about POV, but it's a thoroughly useless article. Runcorn 11:14, 7 May 2006 (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.