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. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 05:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

George W. Bush substance abuse history (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Blatant BLP violation; there's no evidence in the article that this is notable. This should not be merged anywhere. Mangoe ( talk) 16:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I could see a tiny mention of the drunk driving incident, but that's about it. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 16:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I may differ with Mangoe on the details--some of it is maybe acceptable in his main article; then again, I just looked at Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#Alcohol_use_and_DUI_arrest (there's a link to this article there, which should be removed of course if I have my way in this AfD), where perhaps one or more editors feel the need to start pruning. But this article is unacceptable, placing UNDUE weight on one aspect of his life; if any content is worth saving it should be placed elsewhere. And I agree that there should be no redirect either. Burn it. Drmies ( talk) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • OK, maybe Early life of George W. Bush needs to go as well, before or after pruning, but let's set that aside for later. It's needless but not a problem, besides possibly the drinking bit, which I'll leave for other editors to decide. Drmies ( talk) 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I first noticed this page from BLP noticeboard and initially thought it seemed kind of a ridiculous. However, while I personally have little interest in this topic, there does seem to be enough related content from reliable sources for an article on this topic. It appears some reliable sources and content has been deleted. Also, from participating on the talk page, I noticed there's an editor, Lulaq, who says he is in the process of creating "Bill Clinton substance abuse history" and "Barack Obama substance abuse history" and who has created a Category:Substance abuse histories of Presidents of the United States. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 17:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Why would there be a reason for an independent article? Drmies ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I see what you mean: well, if they're going to write it, those articles will end up the way this one does (hopefully). Drmies ( talk) 18:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Duplication entirely. Including material which violates WP:BLP in the first place (anonymous allegations of drug use with his refusal to speak being then used to imply guilt, etc.) Collect ( talk) 17:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A ridiculous BLP violation. We don't need articles that specifically highlight dubious behavior of public figures. What's next, "History of rude statements made by Johnny Depp"? Give me a break. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as utterly pathetic BLPVIO. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as redundant content already found at Early life of George W. Bush in the Alcohol use and DUI arrest section (which is in turn a duplication of content also found in the Marriage, family, and personal life section of George W. Bush). Anyway, to me the AfD under consideration is a WP:POVFORK giving WP:UNDUE to events that are not denied by subject and also veers into WP:NPOVVIEW territory. Shearonink ( talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Question: Why is the "second" nomination older than this nomination? -- N Y Kevin 01:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see, it's because there were two old nominations and this is actually the third. That's a little confusing... -- N Y Kevin 01:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The other two were were when the article was under a different name, controversy vs history. GB  fan 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as strong BLP violation. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Question The two previous nominations ended in very clear keeps; why the difference now? ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe because a significant amount of content along with refs has recently been cut from article.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

If you're implying something about the editing history, then come out and say it. If you think this article should be adjusted to a previous state then give us a link so we can perhaps change our opinions. Shearonink ( talk) 00:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Confused. I came out and said it. A significant amount of content & refs were recently deleted. Everyone has access to edit history, but here's a link to my last edit on this article (which was just to remove a dead link). https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_history&oldid=605453293 It had a lot more content then, and significant content had been recently deleted before that. Here's a slightly older version, that included cocaine: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_history&oldid=602526940. I only stumbled upon this article from BLP noticeboard, and personally, I don't care much about the article one way or another. It clearly needed work, and it's not a topic I'm terribly interested in. Just answering victor falk's question. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 01:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The article was even better in 2008. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Wow -- I think you should have read that section before showing it here as a great reason for deletion of this article: In Fortunate Son, Bush biographer Hatfield quoted several anonymous sources regarding allegations of Bush's cocaine use.. The problems are that "anonymous sources" for a felony are against WP:BLP and the minor bit that "Fortunate Son" is not a "reliable source" for anything at all. Books actually pulled by their publisher are not reliable for anything. Glad to see this is the "substance" of what was deleted -- and which absolutely had to be deleted by policy. Collect ( talk) 12:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, the first nom was closed out rapidly as "disruptive" (someone essentially edited the article away), and the second was largely perfunctory. In both cases, from what I can see looking at the old versions, the complaints were largely justified. The talk page is full of people complaining about the inclusion of questionably-sourced allegations, on top of the complaints that the article itself is one big BLP violation. Mangoe ( talk) 15:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The path to deletion is clear; snip away at a hated article until it is a stub, then nominate it. At 18,000 bytes and well written, the article was much better in 2008, given that it needed bare cites turned into proper references. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

You can see User:ResearcherInFlorida try and do this the easy way in 2009, by deleting it down to its current 3K bytes and then attempting to turn it into a redirect. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The WP:BLP issues were not created by some sort of conspiracy or cabal, and this is not the venue to make any such accusations of improper editing. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

In any case this doesn't address the issue of whether at least some of RiF's excisions were justified. Mangoe ( talk) 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete This information is in other articles and a compilation of Bush's verified substance abuse is not notable nor neutral. My position is the same for articles that would be created for Clinton and Obama, and the consensus on these types of articles must transcend party lines. Lulaq ( talk) 00:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment My position on this has changed throughout the years, and this is documented. Lulaq ( talk) 00:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Purpose of this page is to discuss whether an article ought to be deleted. Personal asides, innuendoes and attacks, including implications that an editor was another editor in the past or the like are improper here and should not be considered at all by anyone closing this discussion. Collect ( talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This has received a lot of attention. But where's all the content? Everyking ( talk) 23:56, 6 May 2014 (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.