Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worst United States President in history

Worst United States President in history

I can't see how this is a coherent topic worthy of an individual article. At best all it would do is collect criticism of each individual president found in their own articles. This is only going to be an echo chamber for the pundit spin of the year or the author's personal research. There are not any unified academic standards for analyzing this or even describing what it means to be the "worst president in history." Delete. User:Postdlf 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Now the list has nearly every president. It's just a horrible mess. Delete. Mike H 03:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is vandalism I have already reverted three times. Please judge the article on its original, not its vandalized, form. LevelCheck 03:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The original form is even worse. Delete in either incarnation. Mike H 04:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I've looked at your best copy. I disagree with you, LevelCheck, and agree with the person who posted the VfD. This article just isn't encyclopedic in nature. It's completely subjective. There just isn't any way to place an objective measure on such a subject. The title implies there is an objective measure. Also, the article is less than two hours old and already you've reverted it six times. You're in danger of getting a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. --Gcashman 03:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 03:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete totaly POV in current forms, no sources or outside views. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. D. G. 03:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. No third party sources. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. Info about criticism of Presidents should go into their articles. Without that info, this list is uninformative. It is necessarily either POV (if you pick a few presidents) or trivial (if you list all or nearly all of them). FreplySpang (talk) 03:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Topic is POV by definition, no encyclopedic value. — Cortonin | Talk 04:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, irreparably POV. SamuraiClintonLevelCheckcruft. RickK 04:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Worst. Article. Ever. NatusRoma 04:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with most of the previous statements. Jonathunder 04:52, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. (vote by User:Firebug)
• Redirect to Ronald Reagan or else delete. Klonimus 06:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks potential to become encyclopedic. Charles Matthews 07:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV title. Totally subjective. Besides, if you list half the American presidents you're sure to hit at least one bad one. Lacks explaining references. Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, flamebait material. Megan1967 08:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV title, content is simply all US presidents, useless for a redirect. Sjakkalle 09:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding Klonimus's--ahem--humorous suggestion, I say delete as spurious. What could anyone have against Coolidge anyway? Dave1898 12:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He was boring. ;) Dorothy Parker remarked upon hearing of Coolidge's death: "How can you tell?" Mike H 12:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is this POV, but it also completely fails to explain why any of these presidents has been considered the Worst. United States President. Ever. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research, useless. --Bletch 13:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Looks NPOV to me, as every president I've ever heard of is on the list. Apparently they were all equal in 'badness'. Delete. Radiant_* 15:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Sir Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the rest." -- 8^D BDAbramson^gab 15:37, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 21:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since many historians have ranked Presidents in various ways, it would be possible to have an encyclopedic article on "Historians' rankings of U. S. Presidents" that would summarize the opinions of these historians in the approved "X said Y about Z" formulation. However, every such ranking or opinion should have a good solid source citation, preferably a traditional print reference with book title, publisher, ISBN, and page number. An article that says "The following United States Presidents have often been suggested for that title" with not the slightest hint of who has suggested them, when, or where is not such an article, nor is it useful guidance to anyone who would want to write such an article. Thus, "Historians' rankings of U. S. Presidents" is an encyclopedic topic, but this article has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wipe the slate clean. Let someone start over from scratch if they want to. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any article other than the current listing of all presidents would be both highly POV and original research, and the listing of all presidents is useless. --Carnildo 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete extreme POV. —Seselwa 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Shimmin 01:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. Slac speak up! 05:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Impeach and remove from office. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 21:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Childish vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense — Helpful Dave 01:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- POV titled, and I ain't even read it yet... - Longhair | Talk 11:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Leaving this would just spawn bad comments... "George Bush!" "no, Carter!" "No, Lincoln he sucked worst!" "no Bill Clinton he carried on in his office!" and so on. So to avoid the inevitable flamewars, DELETE. Master Thief Garrett 03:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. --Headisdead 15:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. Strictly POV. Sango123 17:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, strongly, it's a perfectly good topic. I have often heard debate about who is the worst president we Americans have had (I voted against him last November, for the record), so it's definitely a historical issue with some currency. I believe there have been ranking systems and such established by historians, and I think there was actually at least one complete list of presidents published, which ranked them from best to worst. I'm concerned about the number of delete votes I see here, and the logic I see being used. Everyking 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, strongly, it's not a perfectly good topic. I have often heard debate on what the best television show ever on American television has been (I voted on Six Feet Under last year, for the record), so it's definitely a historical issue with some currency. I believe there have been ranking systems and such established by media analysts, and I think there was actually at least one complete list of television shows published, which ranked them from best to worst. I'm concerned about the keep vote I see here, and the logic I see being used. JRM 17:07, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • You make a damn good case for that TV article. When are you going to write it? Everyking 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • When I can cite notable media analysts, popular polls (I know there are some of the latter) with their views on and the best television show and whatever characters or plot lines made them be regarded as such. I really can see how a popular entertainment issue like this can be worth an article.
    • To sum up the silliness: the article we're voting on is rubbish under a POV title. I love eventualism as much as the next person, but there are limits. Here's one. Feel free to "properly do" the article you so vividly breathe a semblance of life into with naught but imagination. I sincerely hope this isn't supposed to be it. Delete. JRM 18:57, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
      • Sarcastically parroting my logic is really obnoxious, you know. And if you want to make it work you need to pick something more patently absurd. The TV example sounds like a perfectly good article to me. Everyking 23:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I know. It was supposed to be as obnoxious as your handwaving and patronizing "I'm concerned about the number of delete votes I see here, and the logic I see being used". Your concern is touching, but not productive.
          I'm sorry I couldn't go far enough for your taste. I thought it was already absurd enough, but it's clear to me now you're voting on the topic, while I'm voting on the article. The TV show example I did to highlight the massive difficulties (or sheer impossibility) of keeping any article with "best"/"worst" in its title NPOV and relevant. To then suggest as casually as you did that it's perfectly fine and should be kept boggles the mind, especially if you imply that everyone else is using faulty logic.
          I do not at all object to the article you allude to—but the article we're voting on has got to go. The only way you can "make" this into a good article is by completely replacing it, in which case you might as well send off a decent signal by deleting it. Had this article been improved substantially in the voting period, I would have voted keep. It wasn't. It's the same rubbish it used to be. Voting keep appeals to a level of patience and trust we shouldn't need to have for articles as clearly defective as this one is—not just in execution, but in the very approach. Again: nobody's losing anything over this. An article on the same topic, done properly, would sooner benefit from seeing this go than having it stay. This argument springs from incompatible assumptions, not because we really disagree on the conclusions. JRM 07:01, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
          • Update: I see SethIlys has made a start in turning this article around. I'm pretty sure this is pointless for this article under this title, but an effort is an effort, and it shouldn't go unnoticed. Changed my vote to Keep, pending further rewrite, and a move to a better title. I personally think something more general than "worst president" makes for a better topic, though (Historical assessments of United States presidencies?) JRM 07:01, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Delete. Since most people have no historical perspective (and since politics is all about exaggeration anyway,) I suspect that every incumbent president in the history of the United States was called the worst ever by some of his opponents. Isomorphic 17:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We have articles about fictional spaceships, and we're voting to delete this? Now that's a lack of perspective. I presume that such an article, if done properly, would cite notable historians and popular polls (if there are any of the latter) with their views on the worst president and whatever policies or actions made them be regarded as such. I really can't see how a popular historical issue like this isn't worth an article. Everyking 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Everyking points out, and although it may seem a little silly, it's a subject that *does* get discussed quite a bit, both in the popular media and in academic circles. The article can discuss the arguments and counter-arguments for naming certain presidents worst ever (and reference to Bush-43 as such, which may or may not be unprecendented in American history, certainly deserves mention). I'd take a swing at improving the article (which should be at a better title) along the lines Dpbsmith proposes, if it weren't obvious already that it's going to be deleted. Like Everyking, I'm slightly concerned about people voting delete based on what an article is, rather than was it could be. -- Seth Ilys 20:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And yeah, I'll put my money where my mouth is and work on it. -- Seth Ilys 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Good. You'll get to start from scratch after it's deleted, which it should be any time now considering how it's been six days since the nomination, and the votes are overwhelmingly to delete. Postdlf 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If it gets deleted, I will continue to work on a viable version and post it under a new title. I didn't know about this VfD until today. - Seth Ilys 20:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with President of the United States - all of them seem to be double entries. -- AlexR 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)