Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/George H.W. Bush

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "George H.W. Bush, Fidel Castro, William J. Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan".

• If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
• If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
• If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.

Deletion rationale

(See also talk page of the orginal article), but i reiterate: just because he appeared visually in a blurry picture in an episode, I doubt that warrants creating an encyclopedic entry for it on MA as part of canon. From the looks of it, it seems as if only his picture was shown in the Enterprise episode. Why create an entire article mentioning his presidency and the years he served and what his son did etc when none of that is mentioned in canon. Also, as mentioned by Alan and other users, there is no evidence that he was president and at those specific times etc. (the same goes for the Bill Clinton article)– Distantlycharmed 23:39, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Keep, but rewrite. Pretty much anything that appears in canon is valid to create an article about, but it should not go far beyond what is shown. In the case of Bush 41, we can use common sense(plus the fact his image was shown in a historical record, indicating he was somebody important) and state that he was president and met with Gorbachev, but we probably should not state the years unless they were given in canon, as the Star Trek timeline is not necessarily like the real one. Same goes for Clinton- state he was President, but not when. We have wikipedia links for the real world information.--31dot 23:55, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, we have articles on starships that appeared only briefly and/or were blurry. People shouldn't be any different.--31dot 23:57, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Right. Only his picture appeared and we can say he is George H. W. Bush. That's all. Nothing else. And even that, in my opinion is stretching it, as no one actually says it is him, so technically it could be anyone. – Distantlycharmed 00:27, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Technically it isn't "anyone"; we should accept a picture of someone at face value unless we are told it is someone different. The picture was put in the episode by our contemporaries, who knew who Bush/Clinton were.--31dot 00:30, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

But I thought we are not make such assumptions and inferences based on common sense and personal knowledge and belief. How many times have articles on chemicals, for examples, been edited out of information that wasn't presented in canon. I dont want to split hairs though and I think it is valid to assume that they really intended to show George senior, but like you said, I would leave out any information pertaining to their presidency, time thereof or anything else. – Distantlycharmed 00:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

You thought wrong. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:15, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with 31dot. He was seen in the episode. Keep a brief description and add a link to the Wikipedia page if readers would like to find more information.--TardisCaptain 01:42, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Much like with Douglas MacArthur, we can just write a "ludicrously ambiguous article" and mention all the non-canon stuff in a bg note. - Archduk3 02:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Er yeah, I just saw the long a$$ debate on that one. Anyway, the point is that they are not mentioned or talked about, there is only a picture of them there and these ridiculously ambiguous "articles" or blurbs really have been created to reference a picture that was shown for half a second. I mean we even got an article for Hillary Clinton? Should we now go in and every time there is picture for a mili second or the reflection of something maybe in the mirror, and create an article for it as if it was relevant? Speaking of common sense. These presidents and their spouses have really no relevance to the Star Trek canon and seem to be in there just for the sake of being there.– Distantlycharmed 03:15, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the many timestream articles, okudagram articles from when Data was reading at high speed, etc., we already do just that. How about the countless background characters that may have been seen only for a moment? We have for basically the entire time MA has existed. These "presidents and their spouses" do have Trek relevance in that they were featured, even if only for a moment, in Star Trek. We shouldn't start picking and choosing based on number of frames. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:18, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

This is not about number of frames, this is common sense. They were pictured and not mentioned or even discussed or remotely referenced in any way or shape and bear no relevance to canon. The Eugenics wars took place, according to canon, in the mid 90s (93 to 96) when Clinton was president. So are we from that to assume he was the president in office while the Eugenics wars were going on and then maybe create a specific article for that or interlink and cross reference etc? You get the picture. But that's nonsense and the mess it would create would be equally nonsense.

Anyway, seeing that this debate has been going on regarding various articles now with pretty much the same arguments made, maybe it was time to address it as an issue. We have the nit pick policy for a reason, so something like this might equally qualify as an issue that needs to be addressed. – Distantlycharmed 03:32, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

We aren't discussing talking about Clinton in the Eugenics War article. If it comes up there, discuss it there. We're talking about censoring content from MA because you don't like how many frames it was on screen. Yes, it does amount to that. I also don't like you know claiming "common sense" as an argument when your initial statement regarding "common sense" was to say you thought we weren't allowed to use it to name a picture of Clinton as Clinton. So which is it? Is common sense defending or opposing keeping this? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:08, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging in a nonsensical debate over semantics with you. I made my point. A point that was made many times before me by others. I think everyone got my point. So stay on topic or drop the bickering. It is once again killing my buuuzzzzzz.– Distantlycharmed 04:17, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Don't really care about your buzz. I do care about not censoring content just because it wasn't visible very long. It isn't our job to pick and choose, not if we want to be considered the most comprehensive and complete.. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:19, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Using reality as a bg source to name a real person seen in an episode as themselves isn't a problem, as the canon policy covers that. Since this is a real person seen in a real TV clip (because time is really just a TV show), and we haven't been given any other facts in canon to doubt it, I think we would be safe saying he was a President, but not which President or when. - Archduk3 04:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

How about just a re-write along these lines? "In real life George H.W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States. In the Enterprise episode Storm Front, Part II George H.W. Bush was seen as one of the historical figures when the timeline was restored. It is not known if any other aspects of his presidency was used in the Star Trek universe." This same formula could be used for the other people in the clips. I know that with George W Bush there could be an Apocrypha from one of the Mirror Mirror short stories that was published by Pocket Books so there are other entries that could be placed with these individuals. --TardisCaptain 01:35, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Fix the POV on that, and it might be fine. -- sulfur 01:39, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the POV on that would essentially mean rewriting the whole thing, so I don't see how that would be "fine." --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:40, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Definitely no deletion - the goal is to actually inform the readers about everything that happened or was visible in Star Trek, not to actively hide that information. Bush (and apparently the other presidents that have just been added to this discussion) was visible, so information about him needs to be available. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that not each and every article has to be "in-universe POV". If there are doubts about Bush being a president in the Trek timeline, it would perhaps be nearly as good to write a real-world article about him, stating that his image has been used in one or another Trek episode. -- Cid Highwind 09:37, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cid. Definitely keep for reasons given above. --From Andoria with Love 09:47, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Wait what? Write a real world article about his presidency in MA based on one blurry picture? Why not just link him to wikipedia - like we do with some articles. If deletion is not going to happen, then I recommend going with 31dot's and others' suggestion of just stating that he was seen in this picture without further elaboration as to the details of his presidency. Like I said, if we do mention exact dates then we could also cross-reference and indicate that Clinton was president at the time the Eugenics wars took place. Do we really want to make that assertion and are we prepared to update the Eugenics Wars article stating that Clinton was president at that time? If not, then we should leave out any specifics about his presidency (year etc) and be as vague as possible. – Distantlycharmed 17:11, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

My take is that we should never link to Wikipedia within an article (unless it is "real world") and should only have those links in the "External links" section at the end. -- sulfur 18:54, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

KEEP I would like to see a rewrite becuase, as stated above, it appeared, so it is canon.--Obey the Fist!! 19:00, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded most of these, and I now think the only real leaps we are taking are the century they are from and saying they were Human. - Archduk3 19:23, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Admin resolution

Given rewrites to better abide by canon, articles kept.--31dot 20:31, August 25, 2010 (UTC)