Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama fly swatting incident

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. I need a rationale to SNOW close this? Really? I think not. I would suggest that the creator of the article seriously thinks about his WP:POINT behaviour in creating articles like this, because previous editors following this course have ended up on the wrong end of the block button. Black Kite 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama fly swatting incident

Barack Obama fly swatting incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This event should not be its own article. At most, it could be given a small mention in one of the other Barack Obama articles. SMP0328. (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's noteworthy and well sourced. In future decades, people will still be talking about it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In future decades, people will still be talking about it." How do you know this?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's an isolated, and insignificant, incident that only matters to PETA. SMP0328. (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus, it's kind of cool, and its presence here doesn't hurt anything, two more arguments we're not supposed to use in deletion discussions.... The tone of the article as it exists at the time of nomination is neutral and slightly humorous in a dry way, in that it is covering utterly trivial events with some degree of earnest seriousness. That can be cleaned up if necessary. The story has resonated with the press, and I think the reason runs deeper than mere fascination with celebrity. If someone in the same league of famousness as Obama (say, Oprah, Donald Trump, or Paris Hilton) swatted a fly nobody would care. There is a parable in there somewhere about the most powerful man in the world killing a fly, and some potential for this to become a cultural meme. I do think it adds something to the encyclopedia that people are interested in reading about. We aren't nannies here. If the reporters think it's worth reporting, the public wants to read about it, and we have reliable sources, we can't second-guess notability just because we consider the event unimportant. The more serious qualm about the article is WP:NOT#NEWS - if in hindsight this is no more than just a slow day's news story. But if Grundle's prediction is true and people talk about this in future decades, that's not an issue. Surely, someone will come out with a children's book - there's already a children's book about the search for a first dog. Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But does that incident deserve to be its own article? SMP0328. (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there shoulda been a ؟ in there somewhere, Tarc (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the above must be a joke vote-- all the arguments in favor of keeping come from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. OfficeGirl (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Inane, stupid. Oh yeah, and WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't even worth a mention in the president's own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This incident is so insignificant it doesn't even deserve to be merged. If kept this article won't grow beyond a stub. Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, most of the above objections are certainly valid points (inane, stupid, notnews, insignificance, lack of available inormation), even if I personally disagree. Regarding information placement and organization, just as an FYI, most Obama-related articles do not merit a mention in his main bio. It's kind of the opposite of most situations due to his hyper-notability. Depending on how widely you cast the net, we have somewhere between 150-250 articles that are about some aspect of Obama, his career, family, events, election year stories, etc. Most, though notable in their own right, are simply not important or relevant enough to overcome WP:WEIGHT concerns due to the limited amount of space available in a single article. In the (unlikely?) event that this article survives, it probably will not get a mention in the main bio or presidency articles. Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Honestly, I would urge a speedy delete as yet another in a long line of extremely bad faith article creations and/or article edits by Grundle2600. All the valid reasons to delete this can be found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, etc...; fails notability guidelines, it is trivial, it is a piece of end-of-the-news-cycle fluff wholly unworthy of an article or a passage in any other article. Grundle2600 has already responded above with the "but its reliably sourced!" bit, and will no doubt do so again below. Despite numerous editors having told him that sourcing wasn't the sole justification for an article, or an edit, it just isn't sinking in. Because here we are. Again. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Precisely what NOTNEWS is meant for. Every day there are stories about Obama in the press, and most of them do not warrant articles. Come back in six months and see if there has been persistent coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I get the impression that there's more at work here then I know about or care too. Ignoring all that and just focusing on the article itself I can't see it being worthy of an article. As for my reasoning, there are probably stronger policy arguements, but in my mind it's a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. (This is my opinion, and is not meant to reflect on any who may disagree with me in good faith.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOTNEWS indeed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete per Wikipedia:News articles. "Nuff said. OfficeGirl (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would go along with deletion if it dies down in the media after a week. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT#NEWS with a healthy serving of Wikipedia:Recentism on the side. Just because something make a news cycle does not mean it automatically becomes encyclopedic. --Allen3 ^talk 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A clear case of WP:NOT. Many of the NOT indications are here; I'll say WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOTREPOSITORY to change it up a little. Abductive (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We already have Wikinews but it seems like we're in desperate need of "Wikitrivia" (and I'm almost serious about it).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Or maybe "Wikifunnies".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, may become interesting to a historian in 140 years, but there's nothing truly significant in this incident. If this happened to a nonnotable person, even if they got tons of coverage, we'd delete the article on the person by BLP1E — so how does it help the encyclopedia to have an article on a truly trivial subject? Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the article as it appeared when I wrote it. Since then, someone has edited the article to substantially reduce the number of sections in the article. I disagree with that edit, because one major point of the article was to have lots of different sections. When you cast your vote on keep or delete, please look at the version that I linked to. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the comments and votes, including my own, are regarding the article as you originally wrote it and as it is currently. SMP0328. (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dito, and I think we can assume that other editors took a look at the very short article history as well.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the irredeemability inherent in the subject matter itself, the version of the article is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Delete (should be {prod}, but I suppose that would be challenged). It's an amusing anecdote, and enjoyable tongue-in-cheek comments by various people. I'm sure I'd enjoy reading it on some blog, but it has no resemblance to encyclopedic content. LotLE×talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was prodded, Grundle declined and it was removed. Speedy was also declined, so, here we are. With any luck, there's a bit of snow in the forecast, though. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS, heck even the whole WP:NOT, is only trivia, and is not notable outside a slow news day. Brothejr (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, content fork. From Michelle's arms to Barack's flies in a week, looks like a speedy category ought to be defined soon. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (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.