Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama condolences

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama condolences

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

this information is covered in individual articles. A separate one is not necessary. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have looked over this user and he is a habitual deleter. Having information in other articles is not a criteria to delete. Otherwise, we would delete the Barack Obama article because he is mentioned in the United States article. This article is well referenced and qualifies for an article because it is has many sources, keeps on being reported over long periods of time, is reported by hundreds of news sources and other sources, and is not a trivial matter. Besides, the article has been around for about 10 minutes and trying to get rid of this article in such a short time is a very nasty thing to do. Judith Merrick (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice synopsis in one place, perhaps poorly worded, but that is not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps the dumbest (well, nothing holds a candle to the fly-swatting incident) Obama-related article seen yet. There is nothing significant or noteworthy about any public official offering condolences or sympathy in the wake of tragedies that may happen. Hell, what would be noteworthy if is an official didn't offer such. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Placing a bunch of non-notable events together in a single article doesn't create a notable article. Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, as this is little more than a collection of times Obama has expressed condolences, which as Tarc notes, would only be conspicuous in their absence. If kept, however, this needs a major rewrite. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't possibly meet the notability criteria. Concur with Bradjamesbrown. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Bradjamesbrown - it's a list, but a list of statements by Obama that lacks any sort of overarching theme. Guettarda (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do...condolences! A unifying theme! In no case, did he ever say "I am happy they died!" Judith Merrick (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A president offering condolences? Imagine that. Not notable in the least. Grsz¹¹ 01:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and poorly defined, not per the nominator's wholly inappropriate rationale.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a reason that I respect unlike some of the baseless reasons. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This indiscriminate list is an abomination. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not deserve a seperate article at all. While the person is notable, the condolences are so minor that I doubt if news reports would bother to use a second sentence to describe it. Blodance (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I respect your reasoning, which is better than some, some news reports devote 3 or more sentences. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bradjamesbrown. THF (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though i did like the fly-swatting incident. That could go into Barack Obama non-condolences.--Milowent (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable collection of non-notable facts. Also WP:NOTNEWS. —DoRD (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of non-notable events. It would be like creating a list of places he's eaten at. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try telling that to the 7 articles/events that this referenced. Things like the attack on the CIA base in Afghanistan, the worst loss of CIA personnel in more than 2 decades or the earthquake in Haiti which killed thousands. Your reasoning is wrong. This is not a list of non-notable events. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that the tragic events are not notable; rather, we are saying that Obama's expressions of condolences are not notable. Big difference. —DoRD (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I meant. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My condolences to the editor who wrote the article, but the list of condolences made by a politician seems a bit much. Not notable. The condolences, not the events. Perhaps the author could change some aspects of the article, and come up with something else to include this in. DD2K (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE RECORD: Although it looks hopeless, let me say for the record in case the article is deleted and no trace remains, that this article (though unfinished) had 7 sections about 7 events and describes the condolences that President Obama offered. Each section had a very reliable reference. Nobody has questioned the references as being unreliable or tabloids. Judith Merrick (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being reliably sourced is not the sole criteria for inclusion on the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE - SPECIAL REQUEST: PLEASE DO NOT SPEEDILY DELETE THIS. THE MOST LEGIMATE CONCLUSION IS A NORMALLY PROCESSED REQUEST. AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL THERE ARE 50 DELETE VOTES OR 48 HOURS Judith Merrick (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to creator Chill, d00d. ;)

It is unlikely to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If it gets deleted, under normal circumstances, it would be 7 days later(unless an admin choose to close it early, of course).

If you feel that the result is likely to be a Delete, but you are confident that you can improve it so it won't get deleted in the future, you can ask the article to be Userfied to you, so you can edit and improve the article, and when it becomes good enough to keep, you can recreate it in the main namespace.

And please try avoid using ALL CAPS - it is not very good Wikiquette. :) Cheers, Blodance (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith, I'm not an admin, but this is looking like an obvious early close candidate to me, because its a snowball of deletes.--Milowent (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lame, hardly very special; all presidents deliver condolences after disasters or murders or after famous people die. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and lame article, which fails not an indiscriminate list and notability. Presidents and other heads of state have always made statements of sorrow when bad things have happened. It comes with the job. If he had said "Good riddance! It serves them right!" that might be encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list of examples of a president doing something that's a completely normal and unexceptional thing for a president to do. And send Judith Merrick's special request to WP:BJAODN. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAll the stuff listed in the article are completely normal and expected from the president. It would be more article worthy if he did not give condolences. Brothejr (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reasons are so obvious and already layed out several times so I won't bother repeating them.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure the article creator means well, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Yes all these condolances happened, but that doesn't make them notable enough to gather into an article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As if Barack Obama was the first national leader to deliver condolences. I voted for the man, but I didn't agree to worship him. Mandsford (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a president of a nation offering condolences is not inherently notable. the events may have this mentioned if the individual condolence has some degree of notability, but this subject is similar to (my favorite fake example), movies parodied by mad magazine. its not inherently notable to be parodied by mad, though some parodies may become notable. this is routine diplomatic and ritual behavior from a public figure. wed need one for each president in our history, along with every other public figure of national stature in all of history. why obama? that makes it pure POV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while i sincerely welcome new editors (i was new only a year ago), i want to point out that claiming the nominator has a history of (unduly) deleting articles is not assuming good faith. they have been editing for 3 years, with 4000 edits, relatively few reversals. the article creator has been editing under this name for less than a month. if you are truly this new, you might consider giving yourself time here to explore more before trying to sound too authoritative. i know i am very hesitant, as a relative newbie, to create any kind of article other than concrete, easily defined ones, like a person, a book, a place, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This miserable gathering of snowflakes is unlikely to survive the flames, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a completely non-sensical article. Compiling a listing of the times a world leader has expressed their condolances to various groups and individuals serves absolutely no purpose. Rapier1 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Heads of state do this all the time, not-notable list. ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. Can we expect to see Barack Obama dances with his wife and Barack Obama shakes hands with a world leader soon? I would suggest a WP:SNOW closure for this one. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to agree with you, but since the official closing is only two hours away I feel we might as well leave it until then. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't until after I had posted that, that I saw when the AfD had opened! I'm surprised it has gone the full distance though, since the only 'keeps' were received in the first 15 minutes. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:10, 21 January 2010 (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.