Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H.W. Bush vomiting 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 keep. Consensus here indicates that this topic is sufficiently notable to pass WP:NOTNEWS, as it was and still to an extent is a major event. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George H.W. Bush vomiting incident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial, embarrassing incident with no evidence of long-term notability. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. The only citation is a single news article from 1992. *** Crotalus *** 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and or Merge with G.H.W. Bush. The event was quite notable at the time and remains so today, and thus merits coverage in encyclopedic form. Whether it should be covered with its own article or as part of a larger article is an editorial decision, not a deletion one. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak KeepId like to see why in the long term this event is notable. the articles present state doesnt suggest this. I would say the article is young though and likely could be developed. There are refences to the event in Bushes autobiographies and other websites in a basic search on google. Id say lets keep and see where its going, if no where then we could revisit in deletion discussion Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into a 1-liner in the Bush article. The only 'facts' here are that he threw up, on this day, in this place - hence a 1-line mention will be fine. At present, it puts an inappropriate spin on an incident about someone being ill - describing it as a 'gaff' is not appropriate. Although there is indeed press coverage, that doesn't mean it necessarily deserves an article - it is definitively WP:ONEEVENT (the subject is, I mean). If, in the fullness of time, the facts in the Bush article are expanded to the point where a separate article is required, then fair enough - but for now, this article is not required. Chzz ► 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. ~~Important~~Notorious incident that certainly would be worth an article, but this isn't it yet. Can break out one from the main article in the future if more information is added. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too would support a merge if consensus steers that way, but to what article?Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George H. W. Bush. The nominator notes there is only one citation from 1992 in the article, but should have done a Google News search to see if there was additional significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. There is, right up to this year. Starting with recent coverage, to show it is still seen as a notable incident in his presidency, there is The Telegraph in 2009 which said Bush's upchucking made him a "notable victim" of a norovirus. The Houston Chronicle (2008) said it was the Number one travel blunder, and "Who could forget" it. The Denver Post in 2006 compared it to Cheney shooting a friend in the face. The BBC in 2003 had 72 words on the vomiting. Time in 2001 said the BushSr was "best remembered in Japan for barfing (vomiting) in the lap of the then-Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa during a state dinner" and has more coverage. It had secondary coverage in a satiric play reviewed in the Rock Mountain News in 2000 and in an art exhibit reviewed that year in "Art in America.". In 2000, the New York Times said Bush Sr's presidency was discredited by "bad syntax, pandering to the religious right vomiting on unsuspecting Japanese." That should be enough to demonstrate that it would present an unbalanced view of the historical and popular view of Bush Sr's presidency if the lap barfing were removed altogether. A couple of sentences in the Bush bio article would be sufficient, in my view. A bio article must not be a whitewashing puff piece which leaves out well remembered and widely covered gaffes. Edison (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a closer look at some of your citations. That New York Times piece you link is a movie review, which is opinion, rather than a straight news piece. It's not even political opinion, but rather a feature story, in which embellishment and even hyperbole are acceptable. However, the stuff from the Beeb, the Houston Chronicle, and Time are more than enough to satisfy verifiability. Most of the other deletes or merges focus not on verifiability but on notability. Horologium (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-known event which many people will be interested in learning the details about, even though it has no substantial importance in the great sceme of things. Borock (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. This was a widely covered event with plenty of sources that just need to be added to the article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more coverage when Bush goes in for a routine medical exam or sneezes. The fact that the news covered it at the time makes it news, it doesn't make it notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Embarrassing but not trivial. Received worldwide coverage at the time. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was widely reported incident. --DAJF (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. This is an isolated incident without any historical context, a mention in the president's article should be sufficient. Them From Space 04:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Weak keep/neutral as I could go either way on the not news issue, and points raised by others here evidence long-term notability. Them From Space 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Widely reported, but not important enough as a stand-alone article. There was widespread coverage of Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid surgery, but we don't have a separate article on that either. If it needs to be mentioned at all, merge a single line into the main article. Horologium (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two previous delete !votes ignore the sources I cited which specifically said it was notable and which are 17 years after the incident. Certainly not a trivial and soon forgotten incident, and more of an historic embarrassment. Edison (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Borock et al. This was a huge diplomatic incident in Japan. To this day, to vomit in public is "to do a Bush" in Japanese. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edison and I have found some sources, some better than others. I added mine and will add Edison's. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC) All done! Bearian (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to GHWB article per WP:NOT#NEWS. A trivial moment that was forgotten shortly after Clinton became president. Notability is forever, and this is already forgotten. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten? Really? Because I remember it pretty damn clearly, and I was 14 when it happened. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten in the collective sense ... I also remember my marching band appearing at the Coca-Cola 100th anniversary parade when I was 14 ... it was covered in the press, but like this, it was forgotten in the grand scheme of things and should not be the subject of an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the criterion for notability of any event that's not so recent is that it has not been forgotten in the grand scheme of things, then Wikipedia should shed a very large number of articles. Meanwhile, Google has a lot of hits for the combination of Bush and Miyazawa (both in Japanese script) and the stem of one neutral Japanese term for "vomit"; enough not to show that this event was neither notable in any normal sense nor significant in the grand scheme of things but merely to show that it is hardly forgotten. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no objection to a merge. I agree with Edison that this is a notable enough event for a mention in the main article but it certainly doesn't merit its own page. However, I dislike AfDs attempting to press content on the editors of other articles. The way forward is to start a discussion on the main article talk page to achieve consensus as to what, if anything, should be included. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Our actual rules are not of much assistance. A separate article is certainly justified according the the GNG rules; but, as the WP:N rules say, a separate article is not required for everything justified there.. Not News doesn't apply--very little a president does in public or private will actually qualify for not news, as it will all find its way into history books and biographies, and it all will thus have historical notability. We could technically justify in this manner at least one article for essentially every working day for the executive of each major country. Which events then are appropriate for separate articles? I think we need to return to the basic principle that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments, and therefore we shouldn't write in a fragmentary manner. Therefore, we should be relatively limited here, including only those that are known very widely as separate events. I accept the argument that this particular event has --certainly on an international basis, perhaps even more so than in the US. I'm not that happy with including it, and I wouldn't carry extend the analogy very far.--I contrast it with the George W. Bush pretzel incident which has much less widespread coverage, & much less actual importance on world opinion. I'm not sure about the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, whjch would be justified if at all by its role in the re-election campaign. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "weak keep" means to me that this is my opinion, but I would not think anyone wrong who concluded the opposite nor will I try very hard to persuade them DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising keep I saw this AfD and immediately thought, wow there is an article that is nothing but a fork that needs to be deleted. But actually reading it changed my mind. I don't think it would work if it were merged, it is too minor of an incident to warrant more than a passing comment on the main Bush page. But it is definitely a significant enough event to warrent keeping. Thus, it needs its own article... surprisingly.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete thanks to Hoary's research below... it was enough the I decided to look closer at the citations and what was going on:
  1. Reference one is an article simply reporting that Bush got sick and was embarrassed, but doesn't make this incident notable. The news reports when the president goes in for a routine medical exam.
  2. Reference two is a single sentence referencing the incident... the sentence is cited in the article, but a single sentence does not make significant coverage. Again, being spoofed by late night TV is nothing new for the president.
  3. Reference three is a "letter" but is really an opinion piece that reeks with bias and hyperbole that it's value in presenting the facts is seriously undermined.
  4. Refence four currently references to an article of the 25 biggest public meltdowns. The two sentence statement is quoted twice in full and once in part in the article. This is the only reference which gives any credence to the event, but is it still not covering the incident itself, it is trivial in nature.
  5. Reference five basically cites reference 4 and makes an analysis of it. The quote, from an opinion piece, is more or less taken out of context and should be removed.
  6. Reference six is a list of completely unreliable sources.
  7. Reference seven is from Nathaniel Blumberg's blog. Who/what is Nathaniel Blumberg? An unreliable source. If the Baltimore Sun reports this, then find a reliable source that makes the claim... not an unreliable source such as this. Heck, the page the excerpt is form is the Lighter side of the Treasure State Review---a twelve page periodical. And the part being cited is from the bullets below the excerpt wherein the author highlights key findings of the TSR... but no data on the actual Baltimore Sun article that is supposedly being cited.
  8. Reference eight merely confirms that Bush got sick, it says about Bush, in total, "Infection does not result in lasting immunity, so anyone can become infected. Notable victims have included the Queen (on Royal Yacht Britannia) and George Bush Sr (filmed vomiting at a function in Japan)." Guess what, I would not be surprised if most presidents have gotten sick.
  9. Reference nine is a link to the very reliable source, Wikipedia, and the two quotes that Wikipedia is purported to support do not appear on the page. EDIT: Based upon Edison's edit above, I'm going to assume that Berian meant to link to this list. Please note that the article reads, The Houston Chronicle in 2008 said it was the "Number one travel blunder," and "Who could forget" it. Actually, the article does not say, it was the "Number one travel blunder." It does list it as the number one travel blunder, but that is a significant misquote. Furthermore, again, we are talking about a trivial mention. Two sentences does not significant coverage make, per "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
  10. Reference ten has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, it is merely a link to an incident dealing with Cheney.
  11. Reference eleven is supposed to support the statement, "BBC gave significant coverage in 2003" but in reality there is a single sentence in an article on a visit by the Prime Minister to GW's ranch that references it. Clearly not "significant coverage."
  12. Reference twelve is a short one paragraph book review on a book "Dark Prince of Love" which does not mention the incident only that it is set Set against the backdrop of the George Bush presidential years.
  13. Reference thirteen the entirety of the reference to the vomiting incident is, Selwyn's subjects include the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle, George Bush vomiting at a diplomatic dinner during a trip to Japan and Nixon playing the piano. Clearly not substantial or meaningful.
  14. Reference fourteen The NY Times did not, as the article states, that the Bush presidency was discredited by "bad syntax, pandering to the religious right, vomiting on unsuspecting Japanese." The quote came from a movie reviewer for GQ whose article was published by the Times. The article was entitled, HOLIDAY FILMS; When Hollywood Puts Its Spin on the Oval Office and was about how becoming the President was no longer penacle of American aspirations "perhaps because the idea of the presidency as the pinnacle of American aspiration has been discredited by the behavior and/or character of the White House's post-Camelot occupants." Notice, the essay is not about Bush or discrediting his administration, but rather discrediting the notion that the "idea of the presidency as the pinnacle of American apiration." This is completely different from what the article reads.
- The rescue of this essay twists and manipulates the facts to such a degree that I have to question the editors bias and understanding of our basic principles. He has taken facts completely out of context and given them a spin to make this issue appear to be important. He then seems to try to incorporate every reference he can, regardless of how tenuous to pad the reference section of the article. There is no doubt this incident occured, as do thousands of other incidents during a presidential term, but that does not make them notable or worthy of their own article. As is, this article is nothing but a political fork. Hoary is right, the rescue of this article by Bearian is an abomination that Berian should, IMHO, be ashamed of.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Not only should he be ashamed of them, but I would go so far as to state that in my opinion the degree to which Berian twisted the facts would be borderline academic fraud!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What an extraordinary "rescue" Bearian has performed! Some highlights: ¶ The incident was a huge diplomatic incident in Japan; a major assertion, sourced from some chatty, jocular, and elsewhere utterly implausible "letter from Japan". ¶ According the Encyclopedia of political communication, "The incident caused a wave of late night television jokes and ridicule in the international community, even coining Bushu-suru which literally means 'to do the Bush thing'." Bollocks, it means "(to) Bush", or "(to) do a Bush". ¶ In January 2001, on the eve of the inauguration of George W. Bush, a writer noted the stark disparity blah blah blah. More from our one "letter from Japan". ¶ To this day, to vomit in public is "to do a Bush" or Bushu-suru in colloquial Japanese." For the latter half of which assertion our source is that ["]Treasure State Review["], WoodFIREAshes Press, Big Fork, MT, found at Nathaniel Blumberg's website, citing "The Baltimore Sun reports that the Japanese now use a socially acceptable verb for vomiting—Bushusuru: to do a Bush." Context makes it clear that this Sun article appeared not recently but in the early nineties. Whence the "To this day"? ¶ Linguistically and technically, the verb "to do" (suru) has the polite form shimasu, which may be used to make a verbal noun. This new learning amazes me, Sir Bearian. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. ¶ ["]Time Asia["] wrote that the Bush Sr. was "best remembered in Japan for barfing (vomiting) in the lap of the then-Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa during a state dinner." No it didn't. That's again our chum Peter McKillop, in that one "letter" for Time's website -- not the actual magazine; you can read about McKillop's then-status here -- in which he also talks of a brutal tennis match with the Emperor of Japan, who along with his son, the Crown Prince, to use a Texas term, kicked George Bush's butt on the court. Yeah, right. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That there is continuing coverage even in English (cited way above) shows that the incident was indeed notable and not just transient news. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~Hoary,~~ DGG, Borock, Bearian, etc., and using the Merge arguments from Edison as Keep arguments. It caused a diplomatic incident in Japan, and is still being talked about a long time after. Comparing this to news coverage on such events as Carter's hemorrhoid surgery doesn't fly, as the surgery didn't cause an international incident. The barfing did. — Becksguy (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident was considered notable enough to be prominently mentioned in this BBC obit of Miyazawa, and even in another's title Bush-cradling former PM dies.John Z (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why someone is citing Hoary for a keep !vote. Anyway, delete per Balloonman and Hoary's thorough and detailed analysis of the sources. I can't possibly add more to their exposition and so I won't. Tim Song (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think a danger im seeing here is to delete something just because its written poorly (that extends to alot of articles out there). Im just a bit perplexed as to why something written poorly should be deleted on that merit (Correct me if this is not the merit)? Shouldnt we just undo the questionable edits (or re write them) if theres a problem with them? My big question is and maybe weve exhausted the search, but, is there some (maybe not alot) but some genuine respectable sources that establish notability of the event? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident was covered in reliable sources and caused a diplomatic incident. I don't understand at all why this should be deleted. It clearly passes our notability guidelines. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for rewriting, if we can find reliable sources that demostrate that this was more than a minor incident of lasting value. SO far, none of the sources really have shown that. All that they've shown is that sources can be misquoted and misrepresented.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentely there is about a paragraph devoted to the incident on george bushes page in the japanese wikipedia for those curious in checking with google translator (Ill also add that there is only the youtube video as a source present in that section so this is mostly for the curious) Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and based upon the sources provided, that is about the extent to which this merits an article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge redirect would be fine with me. If this is the route we do take i would highly recommend translating the japanese text and finding sourcing for it to include into the main bush article. The text is in good form in my thoughts it mainly highlights the diplomatic trip taken by bush, de-emphasizes the incident and puts focus on the realtions more between japan and the US. Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently about 1,100 words in this article. And I believe all this content should be kept, with expansion. Merging all that to the main Bush 41 article would be an WP:UNDUE problem there, which is why I oppose merging. — Becksguy (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to keep in mind as balloonman and others have pointed out is the majority of the article can be trimmed anyway. The information that can be sourced accuraetly at this time is probably 2 to 3 sentances. A merge redirect is also pratcial becuase it will give the time necessary to find relevant sources to expand the topic. Persoannly i think the whole article would be better served focusing on Japan USA relations and not the vomitting incidednt Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not can be, should be. If this survives the AfD, then I will be undoing most of the edits Berian added because they do not represent what the sources say or use unreliable sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, horrendous violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing more than a minor incident that the article blows out of all proportion. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added some prose, quotes, and citations, although specifically addressing the fact that some of the sources are not the most reliable. The incident occurred before the Internet. My point is that, with a few minute's research on a Saturday morning, it is possible to find many references to this incident, showing that it has some notability. If this is deleted, I will go along with community consensus. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody doubts that this made the news and was the fodder for the late night comedians... they will jump on anything and everything a president says/does. But what we have not seen is anything indicating that this incident amount to more than a faux pas. None of the sources that were used to show that "to do the Bush" are reliable and even if they were, none of them provide any depth to the coverage. Eg with the exception of the immediate aftermath, when it was news, none of the coverage is about this incident.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody pointed out above this article has more than thousand words. As others pointed out above there may be widespread reference to the incident, in more or less reliable sources, but virtually all of them in form of mere sentences referring to the event, some reaction in the USA, or in Japan or another particular aspect. Nowhere I see an attempt for an comprehensive in-depth analysis of the event, its causes, its impact. Except for this article here in Wikipedia. But our articles should not simply add-up existing bits and pieces to create something for which there isn't equally substantive published collateral. So delete. No need to merge either as this discussion provides sufficient input for any discussion of the event considering due weight in other articles.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say its more notable than the George W. Bush pretzel incident, which I also recommended for keep. Is the debate really about whether this incident should be noted on wikipedia (surely it should), or whether its noted in own article or somewhere else? U.S. Presidents now generate so much material that its natural they have multiple articles, its just a matter of what goes where. --Milowent (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument for merge, but as pointed out above, the incident is already mentioned in the article on Bush. So it does exist on WP, the question is does this merit a stand alone article? Based upon the sources provided as of last night, I'd say no.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps Merge a sentence or two. Balloonman's analysis of the sources is telling. PhGustaf (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable incident that was covered very substantially in reliable independent sources and remains significant and relevant in popular culture where it is has been discussed and satirized or years. It also has very substantial and significant linguistic import. There is no possible way the encyclopedia is improve by deleting it. A merge, maybe. But why? Need I remind everyone that every Olympic athlete and professional athlete is considered inherently notable? This is so far and away more important, interesting and informative than those articles that it's not even in the same galaxy for comparison. Not every article has to be on an "important" and "serious" subject. They just have to be on notable subjects, which this clearly is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can adequately be covered as a paragraph in GHWB's article.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are mostly jocular or pot-shots; while this was a high-profile incident at the time, there was no resultant suffering in diplomatic relations with Japan, there was no bigger story regarding Bush's illness, and just because reliable sources need to fill 24 hours a day, or hundreds of pages each week or even each day, and people jump on a bandwagon for awhile trying to synthesize some sort of storyline, doesn't mean there is encyclopedic value to these mundane efforts. Literally a sentence in the man's presidency article is all this story justifies. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident, people vomit when they have a virus; they generally don't vomit at the dinner table or on heads of state, but then, most other people are free to decline a dinner invitation when they're ill. Presidents are human; certain episodes in life are unwinnable and unspinnable; yet without even that as context, sourcing joke after joke at someone's expense serves what encyclopedic purpose? If the pounding the press gave him over this contributed to an image that ultimately lost him the presidency, that could rate a mention, say in a "Public Image of" section or article, but as its own incident, this is pretty much a one-note affair, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Attempts to link it to other presidential incidents seem gratuitous, and hopefully not the point. I'm not awed by the office, but neither do I allow healthy skepticism to turn into a vendetta against it. There are so many tough issues that presidents have to make a choice about, and history shows some of their decisions to be poor. Let's have some articles on those and serve the readership with real studies of issues and events. We need to maintain certain thresholds for what an encyclopedia shines a spotlight on by giving something its own article, and whether there are two reliable sources or two hundred, this article is neither encyclopedically notable nor useful. Abrazame (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reams of possible sourcing. Notable and memorable incident. See comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident for a little more elaboration. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- I wouldn't object to merging this, the GWB pretzel incident, the GWB shoe-throwing incident, and the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident into an article called "Presidential gaffes", but I suspect that would violate NOR. If WP had an article on the foreign relations of GHWB, perhaps it could go there. But I don't think it would merge well into the GHWB article, which is necessarily a 30,000-foot view. jdb (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See, that's the thing about this sort of story, people abandon their faculties of reason and simply believe popular consensus or what they are being told by the media. Gaffe is defined as "1 : a social or diplomatic blunder 2 : a noticeable mistake"; Blunder is defined as "1 : to move unsteadily or confusedly 2 : to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness; 1 : to utter stupidly, confusedly, or thoughtlessly 2 : to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake". Jimmy Carter diverting a hissing swamp animal that's making a beeline for his boat with a few splashes of his oar is neither a gaffe nor a blunder, it's common sense. George W. Bush choking on a pretzel is, while in the broadest sense a mistake, certainly not a gaffe either, it's choking on a pretzel, losing consciousness and falling on the floor. And what part of the GWB shoe-throwing incident is a gaffe or blunder? From the perspective of the shoe-thrower, he was making an emotional and culturally potent political statement about Bush's handling of the Iraq war and occupation and the deaths of thousands over the course of over half a decade; from the perspective of Bush's handling of the war and occupation, it's bizarre understatement to call it a mere gaffe or blunder. This is the only one of the four that cost lives and cost money (taxpayer-paid medical attention for the Bushes notwithstanding). The only one of these four things that could accurately be described as a gaffe is George H.W. Bush vomiting in the Japanese Prime Minister's lap at a state dinner. Ironically it seems these disparate kinds of stories are grouped together through some sort of political correctness that says "I'm not trying to pick on this one individual," or perhaps even a political incorrectness that says "I'm trying to pick on all presidents equally," but—and I mean no offense to editors here—I'll court further irony by saying that if it's worth taking the time to cast a vote over, it's worth considering what exactly to call what you're voting for. "Odd stories of vastly different import that the press, late-night comics and partisan pundits spin into something to mock the president over" is really all these four have in common. Abrazame (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Protonk. --John (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also, it is an interesting and noteworthy example and should be expanded to include an analysis and commentary from secondary sources on the White House Medical Unit in action responding to a notable medical patient. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SS. If something like this happened to a less prominent person, and yet for some reason received extensive coverage, it would be worth including in the bio article. Here, the problem with merging is that the bio of a U.S. President has so many more important things to cover, that information that would make the cut in another bio gets crowded out here. The way for us to provide more detailed information while keeping the main article at a reasonable length is to use daughter articles. The alternatives are merge (probably too much weight in the Bush bio) or delete completely (loses verifiable information about a well-publicized event that future readers might want to know about). Keeping this article is a better solution than either of those. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and late Keep This was something more than just vomiting, since President Bush had collapsed during the summit, and the HLN network almost reported that he had died [1]. Not quite as silly a topic as it might seem seventeen years later. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This was a major international incident. It's hilarious now, but it wasn't at the time, and it's had a nontrivial effect on diplomatic protocol. Ray^Talk 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cicero tells us of the vomiting of notable Roman leaders like Caesar and Antony. Why should we do less? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 24 September 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.