Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama administration controversies

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 WP:SNOW delete. Clear POV fork (relating to a BLP), no potential with the article's current title and presentation of only two past events. Jamie^☆S93 02:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama administration controversies

Another Obama content fork. Also, the only two alleged "scandals" happened before there was any such thing as a "Barack Obama administration." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have crossed paths. I was busy deleting sections from the article for exactly the reasons you cite. This article was speedied a few days ago and recreated. I'm not in principle opposed to "list of scandals about x" entries, but they should be titled as such; this page has a misleading title, given the content. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I saw you creating the talk page, so I checked out the article. Was the previous version under a different title? I didn't see anything in the log. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant simply that a list of Barack Obama scandals should be called that, not "Barack Obama administration controversies". It's completely misleading; the article doesn't deliver what it promises. Hairhorn (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BLP-oriented negative content fork. MuZemike 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Inherently fails WP:NPOV and probably WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork and per above. Tavix | Talk 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as POV fork. Does the author edit Conservapedia by any chance? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a freeper. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- an article on a subject like this could be written, but it would need a neutral title, and a neutral point of view. This article currently has all but two of those, and I don't see it evolving past that. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:46, 5 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.