Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. President (title) (second nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. President (title)

Completely and totally unreferenced for over a year. Claims of original research unaddressed for over a year. Accuracy of facts in the article severely in question (has anyone called a first lady "Madam President" since the 18th century, if even then?). I don't see anything here worth keeping, and anything encyclopedic that could be said about the topic belongs in the President or President of the United States articles anyway. Powers ^T 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous discussion ended with no consensus to keep or to delete. Powers ^T 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to President of the United States. This is not a separate concept, but an alternate label, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The label belongs to the US President primarily, as a significant term (word/lexeme). - Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is one of those articles that assumes because a phrase is heard a lot on TV that it must be worthy of an encyclopedia article... when there just really isn't much encyclopedic content at all to be written. --Movingday29 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Mr. President dab page to at least preserve the long edit history. Otherwise, this can be easily mentioned in the President of the United States articles in a a short paragraph. MuZemike 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong keep (new sourcing makes it clearly a keeper). I clearly remember reading a rather long discussion about the title given to Pres. Washington and how there was a significant debate about what to call him (your highness, your honor, etc.). I can't find the source. It's got a significant history, but it needs sourcing. Sorry I can't help. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of thing would belong in President of the United States, not here. Powers ^T 00:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fair opinion, but not one I share. I think that page is way too full for some relative trivia like this. Historically significant trivia and, I think, notable trivia. But relative to that article, trivia. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a lengthy debate in the 1790s about what to call the president. This article should reflect that story. Very important. Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really the best place for that, though? "Mr. President" is a title that applies to more people than just the President of the United States. Powers ^T 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, yes it is the best place for it. The George Washington article shouldn't go into lengthy details about it, nor should the POTUS article. Kingturtle (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to President of the US. There's nothing salvagable here.--Sloane (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep RE: "Completely and totally unreferenced for over a year. Claims of original research unaddressed for over a year." Please see: WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL: "Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." I find the article very interesting. Articles like this are what make Wikipedia unique. Ikip (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note a notification of this Afd was posted on: President_of_the_United_States Ikip (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as we're using uppercase shortcuts, check out WP:INTERESTING. I should also point out that I did not nominate the article in an attempt to have it improved; I brought up the lack of referencing as evidence that the article could not be significantly improved, or at a minimum, was not likely to be so. Powers ^T 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "I brought up the lack of referencing as evidence that the article could not be significantly improved, or at a minimum, was not likely to be so."

And I just significantly improved the article. So the reason for deletion is moot, please close the nomination. I showed that the article can easily be referenced, if other editors will simply do it instead of demanding that others do it for them. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but I disagree that the article was significantly improved, to the point of now meeting our inclusion criteria. I continue to assert that what little encyclopedic material is here belongs in other articles. Yet you continue to demand I withdraw my nomination. Powers ^T 11:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator this article has been extensively sourced and is not the original article which was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it is the same; the references don't always support the sentences to which they are tied; and dubious claims remain, both sourced and not. And I still don't see anything that 1) is encyclopedic and well sourced, 2) doesn't belong in President or President of the United States, and 3) doesn't belong or doesn't already exist in First Lady. I still think deletion is the proper course of action here. Powers ^T 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has 8 references, but I suspect a hundred would not satisfy some editors, they would continue to complain, doing nothing to improve the article themselves. I welcome all editors to expand this article. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to me, I'm not working to improve the article because I don't think we should include it. Why would I work to improve something I think should be deleted? Powers ^T 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title of the President of the United States is not just "a phrase is heard a lot on TV" but a historically important issue, as it helped to define the character of the office and distinguish it from monarchy. The increasing likeliness of a female president has renewed the issue as a topic of discussion and study. Yes, the article needed some work. Looks like it got at least part of what it needed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not country-specific. Female presidents have already been elected. Powers ^T 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to back that up, the article makes it pretty clear that while the term is often used in the United States, it can be applied to any male head of state (or feminized as necessary) who is elected as a president. That said, I think this particular article tends more toward an expanded dic-def and could be easily worked into the existing President article (and thus the title could be redirected appropriately). 75.71.227.91 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (sorry, wasn't logged in - Duncan1800 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    - I certainly don't deny that female presidents have been elected. But it hasn't yet happened in the country which -- unless I am mistaken -- coined the title, "Mr. President." Since the title was adopted elsewhere in the English-speaking world, and even influenced titles in other languages, you're right that I should be taking a broader view on the subject. And you're making the case for why we need such an article. Like other titles such as "Caesar" and "Khan," it is much more than just a word or a phrase with a definition: It is an independent political entity with it's own history and an international scope. --Shunpiker (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In fact, I was mistaken. If only there was an encyclopedia where you could look this kind of thing up... -- Shunpiker (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: This article is not country-specific. Female presidents have already been elected. I welcome all editors to expand this article. If they need help learning how to add reference tags, please ask. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shunpiker just added 12 edits, adding an international aspect to the article, adding to my 19 edits and 8 references. Ikip (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be condescending. My comment was addressed to Shunpiker's argument for keeping, which was entirely country-specific. Powers ^T 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Weak and pointless stand-alone article. It should be deleted and re-directed to President of the United States, but as for its own Wiki-page... No way. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UT
Keep and immediately close this AfD. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement of any article. Placing one into AfD to force immediate improvement violates policy and guideline. The article should have been tagged for sources, not tossed into the flames. Placing one into AfD without prior due diligence to make sure it could not be properly sourced also violates policy and guideline. Placing one into AfD that a nom KNOWS can be propely sourced violates policy and guideline. If a merge or redirect need be discussed, the article's talk page is the place. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that I KNOW (in capital letters no less) that the article can be properly sourced is not true at all. I know no such thing. And "lack of sourcing" is not the only valid deletion criterion anyway. I still feel that any valid content that could appear in an article with this title actually belongs in different articles entirely. I'm getting quite tired of being accused of violating policies in this AfD. What in the world is going on here? Powers ^T 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not redirect to any US-relates article, per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is worthy of "stand alone" status per supporters above. And, if for no other reason than as a courtesy to Wikipedia users. We can not begin to know what brings them to the Internet Encyclopedia.--Buster7 (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) added comment: Even the article talk page has interesting, informative and valuable insights that would be completely smothered if included in a President article.--Buster7 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has improved significantly since the nomination, but even before those improvements there wasn't a valid reason to nominate it for deletion (WP:BEFORE appears to have been disregarded). The article is valuable, its presence is not disruptive (unlike spurious AfDs), and no compelling reasons for removal have been presented. – 74 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, regardless of issues with references. Articles should only be deleted if the topic is unworthy, not if the content is poor. — Reinyday, 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Nomination proposes a merger and so AFD is not the correct process. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absurd. I proposed no such thing. Powers ^T 23:43, 25 February 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.