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. The consensus indicates the synthesis, POV-fork and NOT#NEWS issues render the article unsuitable for inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama

[edit]

A clear POV fork designed to document derogatory remarks made by Rush Limbaugh. Poor sourcing being used to create a thin veneer of legitimacy. Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article was about the phrase that Limbaugh used. This article is about Obama's teleprompter use in general. That article was move to here and greatly expanded with many non-Limbaugh referecnes instead of being deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established and has third party reliable sources. any POV can be cleaned up. 16x9 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These "third party reliable sources" you refer to appear to be mostly Rush Limbaugh's website, a YouTube video, a couple of blogs, a Rupert Murdoch newspaper and two reliable sources that don't use the "TOTUS" neologism. This warrants a line in a related article, not an article all to itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Rupert Murdoch isn't a valid source, then why haven't you nominated The Simpsons for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork and trivium, dumping ground for material not weighty enough for other Obama articles. Maybe worth a sentence or two at Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show. PhGustaf (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss merger There is a New York Times article entirely on the subject and some other substantial coverage from reliable sources which is the basis for notability. Clearly the article needs work (an editing issue) and a merger is probably worth considering. But this isn't a good case for deletion since notability is well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither notable nor (here's that word again!) significant. It's pure POV nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Un-necessary content fork. Anything that can be said can go in one of the other articles on Obama, either the article on him or his presidency. There is no need for an entire article devoted to how he uses a teleprompter, and keeping it on its own puts undue weight on an entirely minor aspect of the person and his presidency. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Limbaugh content to the show's jargon article. Remove "that was an experience I'll never forget". Get rid of the flubbed line on Tuesday (nn). Get rid of the opinions at the bottom (kind of POVy). Sceptre ^(talk) 16:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Times article, both premiers fell victim to the teleprompter. Just focusing on Obama is kind of suspicious. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the NYT article, it appears Obama uses the teleprompter to stick to his own script, rather than to hide a lack of improvisational skill. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather timely, as Obama happens to have attempted to improvise last night - the result is a gaffe about special olympics. See Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_en_tv/obama_special_olympics Dermus (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Also not really notable. "It's on Limbaugh!" does not count - everything Jon Stewart says doesn't end up here, so there's no reason to apply a different standard to Limbaugh. Also, a cursory look at Googlenews shows that only the fringe directly address Obama as a 'teleprompter president'; every other news story on the subject is only topical to a gaffe caused by a teleprompter malfunction. Anyway, is there anyway to prevent this kind of crap from occuring in the future? It seems to me that as long as Obama is President, we're going to keep getting people who will create an article $noun_of/by_Obama as a way to honeypot in whatever bad things they want to say about him, and it's completely ridiculous. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is adequate news coverage in reliable sources (e.g., New York Times) as the basis for notability. Because some editors don't philosophically agree with the reliable sources (i.e., it is a "Rupert Murdoch newspaper") is not sufficient basis to disregard them. Newguy34 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. Though perhaps a nice piece of essay writing, as an encyclopedi article this is a hopelessly unencyclopedic subject, reads like an essay, and has mostly unreliable sources. Even the reliable sources are mostly in editorial mode and cherry picked. When newspaper X contains an editorial / lifestyle / human interest / humor piece where one particular columnist Y says Z in the piece, it is misleading to say "Newspaper X said Y", and it is impossible to establish any weight to the statement "Y said Z one day in source X." It is a meaningless combination of two matters, Obama and teleprompter usage. Indeed people have written about it but one could say that about thousands of other Obama-related subjects: Obama + basketball, Obama + smoking, Obama + shopping at J. Crew, Obama + travel to Ohio, etc. This particular one has become a darling of some partisan detractors of the president which makes it trivia / cruft of a POV nature. The reason to not merge is that there is little useful content here and it would be inappropriate to move the content wholesale into other articles without the editors of those articles deciding it is relevant, properly sourced, significant enough to include, etc. Anyone editing this article is advised to save a copy of anything useful in their user space, and if they wish propose any additions to other articles at their convenience. Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, although I think that treating the intersection between the president and his use of a particular technology will always be too trivial a subject for the encyclopedia (and POV to boot, given the reason for doing so), I am not adverse to treating TOTUS as a valid neologism / cultural meme if it can be verified as such. Sooner or later Saturday Night Live is going to do a skit, or there will be an article about this as an image matter.Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete without merge. Clearly not written from a NPOV. This is also not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal documenting the habits of Presidents. Anti venin 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I then trust that you strongly feel that the Bushisms article should be deleted. Would you please submit it to AfD? Dermus (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that bushisms is not a worthy article, go ahead and nominate it for deletion yourself. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's already been nominated for deletion twice, and been kept. Jd027 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep umm didnt we just have this discussion? this is a notable topic that and has been covered by worldwide news media sources. it's not just a Rush thing. Perry mason (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if you'll read the previously posted arguments, that it is in fact, not notable and not covered by reliable sources. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whats not reliable about all those sources (and many others) posted? Daily Mail, Sky News, The Times, Fox News, The New York Times and others have all covered this. sure, rightwing blogs are too dubious to include but we have plently of mainstream, traditional media coverage. of course its notable, it would be insane to say otherwise. Perry mason (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. There is nothing notable about using a teleprompter. In fact, it is a sensible approach to making sure you don't make an ass of yourself in front of a camera. It's been done by presidents for decades, and now that a bunch of right wing people and their newspapers (3 of the 5 sources you listed are News Corp. organs) it has suddenly become a big deal? Nonsense. This is just another POV fork, with POV language like "Obama even read from a teleprompter when he said..." - as if it was a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, you are right, there is nothing notable about using a teleprompter normally but what IS notable is the fact that the POTUS has been seen to have an over-relience on the TOTUS and due to this, he has made mistakes (e.g. the Irish PM issue) and this fact has been discussed in the media. is 3 of 5 News Corp. links not enough for you? im sure i can find a lot more if necessary. even if there is POV language in the article, that is not a valid reason for deletion. the article will be kept and some of the language will be made more neutral if it is required. however, i could compromise and say this article could be merged into Public_image_of_Barack_Obama i guess but the content should not just be put down the memory hole. Perry mason (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it turns out that this Irish PM incident" was misreported, and the newspapers and websites described all reported the event by reading the same inaccurate press release. So this isn't notable at all, and most of the sources have been discredited. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok you have convinced me, lets shoot all this nasty offensive disgusting content down the memory hole Perry mason (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Egads, whether or not this is even worth a mention in any Obama article is debatable. This highly-POV fork certainly is not notable enough to stand as an independent article. Just another endaround for some to try to get their 5x-deleted "Criticism of Barack Obama" in via other means. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here but add to Dittopedia, where it will no doubt become an FA. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established and has third party reliable sources (The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Times Online, The Daily Mail, The Politico). It has balanced POV. TOTUS neologism confined to one section - the article has significantly changed. Those claiming POV fork should nominate the Bushisms article for deletion, least their choice in article to delete appear to be un-neutral in POV. Dermus (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Dermus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is the article creator. [reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. If you have a problem with another article, then take it up in the appropriate venue. As for "third party reliable sources"
Politico; is questionable reliable source

US News & World Report; an OpEd, and one that critiques conservatives' focusing on this issue at that

TimesOnline; primarily about the Irish PM, goes into Obama in the middle, then onto to wider US-Irish relation news.

Daily Mail; about the same as above, only much, much briefer.

NYT; the only legitimate article about Obama's teleprompter use, and usage by past presidents.

Limbaugh, HotAir, not within spitting distance of being a reliable source.

So, no, the claim that this has received "significant" coverage, as required by WP:N, is demonstrably false. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the New York Times story entirely about the subject? There are lots and lots of stories about this subject as the sources you mention indicated. Let's not let our personal POV influence article deletion decisions. I think a merge to an appropriate target is reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote above, you would have seen that I noted the NYT entry as the one legitimate source out of the lot, yes. Coverage by one source does not even remotely rise to the level of "significant coverage" as required by notability guidelines however. So no, there are not "lots and lots of stories" about this in reliable sources. After the Times, it drops off to a handful of casual mentions, and from there it is off the deep end into the cozy confines of fringe media. Claims to the contrary are easily debunked, as I have just done to the original editor, and now to you. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And for the record, I agree with the quote from Bill Burton that's cited in the article: "Whether one uses note cards or a teleprompter, the American people are a lot more concerned about the plans relayed than the method of delivery." -- Grundle2600 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Jesus, NO IT IS NOT. Unless you can prove this topic is notable outside the fringe, that it has an effect on Obama's public image or has an effect on his daily life (so that it would meet eligibility requirements for his bio), the this article is not appropriate. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think The New York Times is "the fringe"? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do think I'll fall for your fence jumping? "TOTUS!" is fringe. That some gaffes have been reported on by a /few/ sources does not meet notability requirements, and is nothing more than double dipping: Politico talks about his teleprompter usage and all of the sudden Rush is right! No. No. No.75.66.180.72 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is well sourced and there is a New York Times article entirely about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the "TOTUS" part. My concern is with the rest of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT has also reported, in two or three places, that Obama dislikes beets. This probably isn't important enough for an article of its own just yet, but if it turns out he also eschews parsnip and rutabaga it will be our solemn duty to report on the root-vegetable scandal. PhGustaf (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would breach WP:POINT to actually create the article, but I've just gotta see this redlink: Barack Obama root vegetable aversion controversy (we could have a nice picture of a beet for the Obama Trivia Series template... I'm getting carried away, this silliness is making me giddy). Rd232 ^talk 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF I'm obviously not an expert at navigating the landscape of policy and guidelines here, but it seems to me that changing the name of the article to keep it from being deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teleprompter_of_the_United_States) has to be... wrong? Inappropriate? Against the rules? I don't know, but Denmark has never had such a foul odor.75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the closure of the previous afd, once the article had been renamed, a lot of the previous discussion had been rendered moot, so closing it made sense. the person who closed that afd stated there was no prejudice against renominating it (and I'm not surprised somebody did). If nobody had, I would have. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. This article is clearly a POV fork and the majority of the sources fail WP:RS, WP:V, and a whole host of others. Brothejr (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. I like to think of myself as objective, and I read Wikipedia:Content forking and some related policy/essay pages before weighing in on this. Gaffes like the incident with the PM of Ireland may eventually lead to a Bushism-esque Obama article meriting coverage - but definitely not today. Recognizance (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teleprompter use by the President of the United States is not new to Obama. Neither is the occasional flub. None of the sources presented establish why this topic should be covered separately from Presidency of Barack Obama. And yes, it's a POV fork. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. Arkon (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork and Merge whatever encyclopedic content there may be to the Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh jargon articles, respectively. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure you could get pretty reliable-looking sources for Concerns About What Barack Obama Had For Breakfast as well, but it is possible to have too many articles about one person.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I don't see anything encyclopedic about this subject. Allowing it to remain will lead to the creation of similar articles about every President who ever used a teleprompter. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Artw (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork and content-fork, only created after it seemed difficult (even so not impossible) to include the "teleprompter stuff" in Obama's main article (and mentioning some short summary of this material in one of his subs seemed not to be an option for some).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content-fork per above. Grsz¹¹ 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gerrymandered NPOV-violating content fork. Scope of article designed to reflect poorly on real subject of article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge - Maybe add some of this "material" to one of the sub articles. Just like the Palin sub articles seem to be a breeding ground/container for the muckracker material, hopefully we can contain the Obama muckracking to the subarticles and hope that is enough to satisfy the fringe element. Anyways, Tom 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the WP:CFORK reasons detailed above. Can't imagine how an article with this title could ever be an acceptable article by our standards. Talk about random. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original synthesis of disconnected comments. WillOakland (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OK, I changed my mind about the Cramer-Stewart article, but this one really is WP:NOTNEWS. Pure recentism and POV synthesis. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia and a content fork. What's next? Wine glass usage by Thomas Jefferson? Revolver usage by Andrew Jackson? Bathtub usage by William Howard Taft? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get that Americans love their resident so much, but what is this; joke? --Caspian blue 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork, no independent notabilty established and OR.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per actual wikipedia notability guidelines. Multiple major media outlets have reported on this aspect of Obama's presidency, it is notable and worthy of an article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:N more carefully. The finally clause adds "presumed" as a qualifier, with WP:NOT overriding the previous criteria if the community thinks appropriate. As demonstrated, say, in an AFD debate. Rd232 ^talk 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Pointless POV fork. LotLE×talk 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a POV Fork. I don't believe that this article is anyway encyclopedic. What's our next article Types of shoes thrown at George W. Bush?
Delete as a POV fork. Them From Space 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to represent axe-grinding, not scholarly input. Presidents have been using teleprompters since the machine was made available, and there is nothing unusual about the current president's use of the teleprompter for delivering speeches. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:CSD G10: article which "serve[s] no purpose but to disparage [its] subject". Rd232 ^talk 01:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - trivial, pointless POV nonsense. Tvoz/talk 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable and seems to be a worthy topic for an article. The practices of presidents influence others. -- Noroton (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Did the alleged cannibalism of President Idi Amin lead to widespread cannibalism in Uganda? Or, for that matter, has President Obama's teleprompter usage led to a surge of usage of that product in the US? Did President Bush's teetotaling lead to a noticeable decline in alcohol use? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this really is nonsense, that the arguably most powerful person in the world uses modern technology? Has this really revolutionized politics or even the teleprompter industry? This simply seems utterly non-notable and I look for reasons to save content. If we have articles regarding world leaders using the latest technology something might be salvageable there otherwise the rest can go. -- Banjeboi 04:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And I would love to see the closing admin, if s/he deletes this, make a strong statement about why this kind of article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Barack Obama is a very important person, of course, but we are not going to have articles about every aspect of his life and presidency that has been discussed in the media. This article—though it relates to an issue that has caused some to criticize Obama—is the equivalent of an article like Basketball playing by Barack Obama or Book reading by Barack Obama. Literally everything this guy does will be reported extensively for the next few years—we could easily develop an article about his eating habits as someone suggests above, but this is an encyclopedia so we ought not do that. Instead content like this would probably fit in an article like Presidency of Barack Obama. I'm not sure this story is notable enough at this point, but eventually the article on Obama's presidency should have (it doesn't now) a section on the administration's communication strategies. Probably something about the teleprompter situation could be mentioned there if this continues to be an issue in the months ahead. But it will never warrant an article, and it would be good if we sent a message with this AfD that these kind of articles—whether they are about Obama or any other person who receives obsessive press coverage—violate the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe there is an article on something so minor. And yet, it conforms to Wikipedia's five pillars, covers a topic which without-any-doubt-whatsoever passes our notability guidelines for coverage in reliable sources, and does not stray down WP:NOT. So it's of little importance – why do you care? Neutral, verifiable content on encyclopaedic (i.e. discrete) topics is an improvement to the encyclopaedia. If it's good enough for The New York Times, it's good enough for us. Skomorokh 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's precisely wrong. The fact that something is mentioned in the Times does not mean we automatically include it here. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, which is why this article does stray into WP:NOT. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Torpedo this moronic, unencyclopedic idiocy now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure rubbish. Political graffiti by "dittoheads". ► RATEL ◄ 09:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. And the evident bias in Wikipedia's treatment of Obama as compared with Bush is embarassing to the project as the press are now reporting that too. What's sauce for the goose... Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I really want to see one about his brushing technique. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Spliff-rolling techniques of Barack Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You must be joking. Are American conservatives reduced to this scraping of the bottom of the barrel? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is worthy of a line or two in the main article, only because a small number of reliable sources deem the topic notable (for some bizarre reason), but it certainly is not worth a whole article. Tony Blair made frequent use of a teleprompter. Lots of statesmen do. I doubt the international press will make much of this observation. Not weighty enough for it's own page, nor will it ever be. Dynablaster (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing notable about this president of the us using a teleprompter. an article on teleprompter use by public figures might be nice, with this controversy as a small unit. newscasters use them but we know its part of their job. there is probably commentary going back decades on whether public figures should be allowed to use them and thus make themselves look more prepared, but please, barack is not the first or last or in any way notable. reminds me of a movie article which listed as a notable event that it was parodied in mad magazine. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

[edit]

Delete - and pipeline to our friends at Conservapedia. POV fork. Jd027 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Bushisms is acceptable, this absolutely is too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.62.168 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — 68.19.62.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You might want to check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just saying "x exists, so y should exist" isn't really a good argument in an afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, there are several full-on books - including a fairly scholarly one by a prominent NYU professor - devoted in whole or in part to the topic of "Bushisms," i.e. to the 43rd president's relationship with the English language. Bush's linguistic errors have been discussed ad infinitum and the term "Bushism" has very much entered the national lexicon in the United States and indeed elsewhere. Thus the Bushism article is not remotely comparable to one on Obama's usage of a machine that all presidents have used for several decades and which, for now at least, is just a flash-in-the-pan story. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Possibly worth a mention in a single sentence in Public image of Barack Obama. Obvious coatrack article, ~~and any equivalent about GWB (such as his notoriety for linguistic errors) would rightly be deleted in a shot.~~ I've just seen Bushism, although that really is a case of WP:OCE -Halo (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might not remember, Ronald Reagan was also widely criticized for his teleprompter usage. It was supposedly proof that he was a dummy, a puppet, etc. See examples [1][2][3][4]. Would anyone propose that this should have a separate article? WillOakland (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this is trivia, at worst it's a POV-fork. Either way it should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a POV-fork and completely racist. Where are the articles on the teleprompter usage by white candidates, business leaders, or other speakers? This whole issue stems from Republican Racists thinking that a black man could not be that articulate. TharsHammar (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please not bring up that baseless slander, especially given that these guys were the prime supporters of segregation (and slavery before that), that these two were named by Republicans to key positions, that this guy heads the GOP, and so on? And, while we don't have articles on teleprompter use by other politicians (nor should we, or on Obama), was outrage over this as high as that over this? The fact is, despite his claimed oratorical brilliance, Obama is pretty inarticulate when speaking impromptu; people have noted that, just as they noted the fault in his predecessor; that is all. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, when something is racist I will call it racist. It is important to bring up so people understand why they are slandering the President of The United States like this. Oh, and this guy was a Republican politician. And when the guy who created the TOTUS smear says "I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." or "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King). We miss you, James. Godspeed." We must point out it is a racist smear propagated by a racist Radio broadcaster. TharsHammar (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both of those quotes were apparently made up by User:69.64.213.146 and placed into the Limbaugh Wikiquote article in 2005. They are not actual quotes from Limbaugh. See [5] for further commentary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I got those quotes from here. Even if they were made up there is still. TharsHammar (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to get the last word in: "racism" is often in the eye of the beholder, and tends to shut down all legitimate debate (and debate over Obama's inarticulateness without the teleprompter is certainly valid). It's not as if the Republicans didn't thoroughly repudiate Duke (whose state, I might add, is now led by a non-white Governor, something the Democrats somehow never managed to do during their long and illustrious reign over Louisiana), and it's not as if the Democrats don't continue to exalt a still-racist (one might argue) ex-Klansman, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good polemic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - listen, just because the Chocolate Messiah sounds like an extra from the special Olympics when his beloved TOTUS aint around, doesn’t mean that its ok for you to use fabricated Rush Limbaugh quotes to prove a bad point. CENSEI (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's pretty funny, considering what an idiot your own beloved Bush sounded like when he spoke extemp. Teleprompters are good. Obama is tolerable to listen to. Not great, but tolerable. Bush was literally painful to listen to. He shoulda used a teleprompter more often. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Take it to your blogs, guys. PhGustaf (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've heard of chocolate Santas and chocolate Easter bunnies, but.... wait, wait. This just in.[6] - Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        They're using this euphemism because they can't quite get away with "tar baby". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey, Bugs! Taking over for Br'er Rabbit now that Disney has retired him? PhGustaf (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the racist editor who should be thrown into the wikipedia briar patch. I'm sure the Limbaugh clones think "chocolate messiah" is hilarious. They're the "outs", they've got nothing to lose, and we're hearing more and more openly racist rhetoric from those slimy degenerates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all guidelines, and follows clear precedents. Delete votes bring up straw man that using a teleprompter is not noticable, and yet with so many articles from the most conservative to the NEW YORK TIMES on the subject, it is anything BUT un-noticeble. Deletion here would be reactionary political posturing. ThoriumX (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) — ThoriumX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Offending the delicate sensibilities of Obamatons is not legitimate grounds for deletion. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it legitimate grounds for inclusion. Also WP:CIVIL. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All hail to the TOTUS! And for all of the Chocolate Messiah's devotes who claim that this kind of politically motivated fluff does not belong in Wikipedia, may I introduce you all to the Santorum. You may now resume your regularly scheduled outrage. CENSEI (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wow.Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ahhhh yes, right on cue. And if you think its bad now, just wait for a few months to see the fallout of the 2009 Stimulus Legislation CENSEI (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note His comments here helped "win" CENSEI a topic ban from articles and other pages relating to Barack Obama, loosely construed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well referenced article, also pursuaded ay arguments above. Also troubled by the way that the nominator has moved everything around, which has a whiff of WP:OWN issues.Ikip (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article keeps to a neutral point-of-view sufficiently, and it appears that comments by Rush Limbaugh only constitute one or two of multiple reliable secondary sources. I concur with Skomorokh (talk · contribs) in his analysis of this article. As an aside, the formatting/sectioning of this discussion is atrocious. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject is inherently not notable and a daft cover for personal attacks, per "editor" User:CENSEI. T L Miles (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of its own article any more than "Barack Obama's Bowling Skills" is, and the latter has consumed a lot more media ink and air time. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice against recreation: this article is a POV pork. Ottre 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep It's reliably sourced to multiple independent news outlets. POV concerns, if any, are a matter for editing, not AfD. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources have been discredited as having been written from an inaccurate press release. And nobody would ever say that "Canada Free Press" was a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I see this, the issue is not about Obama's use of teleprompters, it is about the neologism Teleprompter of the Unites States. I am unable to find such an official designation for this device. Glancing through the articles referenced, there seems to be no reference to the term Teleprompter of the Unites States whatsoever. Now, the teleprompter usage has generated significant media coverage, so if any of this information can be used, it should be merged to the Barack Obama article, or renamed. Calling it the TOTUS, especially in this context, is insinuating that the teleprompter is a stand-in for the president, ipso facto representing a non-neutral POV. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Comment - note to self, read the header. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-neutral POV, WP:COATRACK ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV, questionable cites, etc., you name it, this has it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Its worth a sentence or two in the Barack Obama article, but for the moment nothing more than that. If over the next few years of the Obama presidency, teleprompeter usage becomes an iconic part of his style and is commonly commented on (like Roosevelt's Fireside Chats) it might merit an article - but for now its a fairly slim and largely unnotable topic. As others have pointed out there are several more notable things about Obama that don't have articles. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an attack page, and it's a non-encyclopedic topic. I'll let Peggy Noonan have the last word: "insubstantial and weightless". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lord Cornwallis. There aren't many people who can get the New York Times to write an entire article about their laundry list or the way they eat breakfast in the morning, but the current president of the United States is one of those few. It is worth a sentence in the main article, but not a separate article in itself. --GRuban (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There should not be a "merge" of any sort here, IMO. A merge would mean that the current article becomes a redirect to another, but I find it to be a bit implausible that this would ever be used to search the Wikipedia. Whether or not it warrants mention in another article would be decided at the appropriate atricle's talk page, not here. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find it implausible; as some have said, the topic has gotten individual attention by the closest thing this country has to a newspaper of record; and saving the edit history isn't a bad thing either. Redirects are cheap enough that this is worth one. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hard. Probably a line in one of the Obama articles (probably Presidency of Barack Obama), plus any of the old information about Limbaugh into that Limbaugh Jargon article. Redirect Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama to Presidency of Barack Obama and redirect TOTUS to the Limbaugh Jargon article. But it's not going to matter what I say anyway. The article has gone under VAST editing since this was nominated. Compare: Nominated version v. Current version. I mean... it's not even the same article. (Also this recent version- mostly Grundle's work). I would hope that everyone commenting here would go back and look at the new article, but they won't. The Limbaugh material has almost completely been removed, and the sourcing is actually not as bad as portrayed above. Grundle did a lot of work to eliminate the worst offending parts and make the article neutral. But, like I said, it's not going to matter. The article will be deleted based on votes alone (I'll assume bad faith and guess many people voting here haven't even read the article, how's that?). So, I would ask the closing administrator to userfy this to mine (or maybe Grundle's... since he or she did a lot of the grunt work) user space. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, way to cram a whole pile of bad faith assumptions into such a short post. Even without the Limbaugh junk, the issue is still that it is a trivial POV fork of content that was repeatedly tossed out of other articles. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I readily admitted I was assuming bad faith regarding my belief that many voters here probably never read the article, and certainly not the current version. Your mileage may vary, but I mean what I said, and wo#n't be changing anything I wrote at this point. Mahalo, Tarc. --Ali'i 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you I did read it before I commented here and I'm sure that goes for most editors. The issue here isn't about the article being POV (we can always tag or extensively edit it, if it is) but if it passes notability guidlines. As far as I can tell it isn't. It would be best left as a redirect to Barack Obama not to the Presidency of Barack Obama as his usage of a teleprompter relates more directly to his person, and started before he took office as President. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's clearly about non-neutrality as well. Evidence: See "delete" votes above. How many mention point of view forking? So for some, it's about notability and neutrality. You may be correct about the mergeto target, however. Mahalo, Lord Cornwallis. --Ali'i 20:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had read the article before my first !vote, and reread it in response to Ali's's comment. It's indeed much better now, but it's just become a well-researched, well-written article about a matter of no particular import. The mountain has labored, and brought forth a mouse. PhGustaf (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I did most of the labour in the current version, and I agree with you. It's a nonsense. Who cares if Obama uses notes, or an autocue, or a powerpoint presentation? But - somebody does. Enough that Rush Limbaugh and fans have stirred a veritable hurricane in a teapot. The origins of that hurricane, once teased out, become interesting. Why did Byers report that Obama had gaffed? He wasn't there, so what was his source? Where did both Byers and Pidd get the "teleprompter president" text for their articles? Agency material, because neither was there, but not the Associated Press report almost all the others papers parroted. Just a chance find? Or maybe someone figured an underhand way to achieve apparent independent verification of a smear, by feeding it to foreign journalists as press agency material? Limbaugh was keen enough to declare these second-hand reports truth, and thus use the unwitting "unbiassed" British press to vilify the US papers who'd actually got it right as "US Drive-By Media" Obama sycophants. I find this interesting, and maybe the record of this little teacup should remain available. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and listen up. If 23 separate newspapers use exactly the same wording in a report, it doesn't mean that 23 individual eyewitnesses came to the same independent conclusion. It means that 23 overworked and pressured journalists who WEREN'T THERE all copied the same press agency material verbatim. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment without regards for any alleged good or bad faith assumptions I see this as a reasonable outcome. Merging usable content to two articles - assuming TOTUS is notable enough to the Rush Limbaugh article - and redirecting separate terms to those places. -- Banjeboi 07:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources Ostap 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to this with a strong "delete" in mind, but decided to clean up the inaccuracies and misunderstood citations in the mean time. But in the end, these tell their own story. The "teleprompter president" thing was small beer before the St. Patrick's Day incident, just a theme that Republican sympathisers played with. The only thing that happened on St. Patrick's Day was that somebody else made a gaffe. But Limbaugh decided he was going to spin it as if Obama had gaffed, and went spectacularly over the top. The fallout from that, and from Limbaugh's fans spreading the false interpretation all over the internet, has itself reached the mainstream media. It's almost interesting. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being "almost interesting" isn't grounds for notability though. Criticism of (or interest in) Obama's teleprompter use has spread to the mainstream media, but that does not mean it deserves its own article rather than a breif mention on the main Obama page. Your argument seems to be that it should stay to highlight an alleged conspiracy between The Times and Limbaugh, but I can't see how that would pass WP:N. Basing the article around the St Patricks incident would also violate WP:RECENTISM. If the teleprompeter usage becomes an iconic part of his presidency, it might one day justify its own article. On the other hand, it might all be forgotten in a few days time. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I'm not alleging any conspiracy between David Byers and Limbaugh. I merely wonder where the unattributed agency material used by both Byers and Pidd came from. Just sounds like a source that wanted to spread the "teleprompter presedent" label. What it's actually about though is Limbaugh's lying spin, which has travelled round the world several times before the truth got its boots on. Having the accurate record of events available in Wikipedia has merit. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per delete votes above (not news, pov fork, unencyclopedic...) ~EdGl ★ 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every President uses teleprompters. Big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep has obvious POV issues, but I'll submit my !vote solely on Wikipedia policy and guidelines: Meets WP:N, supplies WP:RS which support WP:V. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sure the closing admin will notice this, but it is definitely worth observing the very large percentage of "keep" opinions who are either brand new users or IP addresses. I'm sure that dittoheads wouldn't organize sock-puppetry on an AfD though... LotLE×talk 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that does seem to assume bad faith. May I suggest using ((SPA)) as appropriate instead? -- Banjeboi 09:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy to accept bad faith here, per WP:QUACK. Not that it makes much difference. Presumably the closing administrator will weight all evidence appropriately. It is odd that such a trivial article would attract so much attention on both sides. Wikidemon (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just curious: is this all aimed at me? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You would have to ask LotLE but I would think not. You're neither an WP:SPA nor a new account. Wikidemon (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't aimed at him. The article itself was created by a user who had never posted to wikipedia before under that name, and some of the !voters are likewise recently dewikiflowered. Some but not all of these are tagged. PhGustaf (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's aimed at me. OK, so I decided finally to create an account rather than doing my edits anonymously. So sue me. But all my comments here are signed by me. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork and trivia. --Docku: What's up? 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting more than enough outside coverage, not just from Limbaugh. If the reason is that it is only to push Limbaugh's remarks, that claim fails. And "IDONTLIKEIT" is too common a theme above to be used for weighing reasons here. [7] Maureen Dowd in the NYT "Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad. " And I suggest that when she takes up a topic, it is not because Limbaugh asked her. [8] NYT again (right wing rag?) "Presidents have relied on teleprompters for decades, but none as extensively as President Obama." dismisses the claim that "they all do it." [9] "For Mr. Obama, a teleprompter means message discipline, sticking close to his intended words." So we are left with notability: passes, one-sided issue = only if O'Dowd and Limbaugh are buddies. It is not just "derogatory remarks by Rush Limbaugh" - it is in the general press, and if Dowd is an example, the genie is not about to go back into the bottle. As long as the article ends up NPOV, the issue remains. Collect (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A lengthy side "Discussion of article version posted 23rd March" that appeared in a separate section following this comment was cut and pasted to the discussion page by me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is an obvious coatrack for a relatively minor POV attack and something with no encyclopedic notability. Should we also start a "use of teleprompter by David Letterman" article? For that matter, should we start one for every president since the teleprompter has been invented? Ridiculous. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has changed a lot since this discussion began

[edit]

Comment Just briefly restating my point at the beginning of the moved section, that much of this discussion relates to earlier versions of the article, not the current version. Opinions on the current version would probably be helpful unless anyone wants to revert to an earlier version. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed a lot. Unfortunately while it started off as an anti-Obama WP:COATRACK it has now transformed into an anti-Limbaugh Coatrack. Which is a mildly amusing irony but it doesn't appear to have changed its notability, and doesn't merit a seperate article at this point in time. If Limbaugh and others keep this issue up for the next 4-8 years it might one day qualify for one. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still opposed. Tvoz/talk 00:23, 25 March 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.