Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms

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, and merge in to the Michelle Obama article the little that is relevant. This is obviously not a topic that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Prodego ^talk 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama's arms

Yes, articles have been written about her arms. No, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. Maybe a line or two in Michelle Obama. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This stuff is really, really trivial, and in particular as it's about a BLP it has no place in an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSD are you suggesting it falls under? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So far, none of the people who favor deletion have cited any wikipedia policies to justify deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Speedy deletion is for clear cut cases that don't require a debate, and I was just asking for some clarification. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~In this case, there's an obvious consensus on the part of the community, which was why I added speedy to my vote. Recognizance (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge If there is no mention in her article it could be briefly mentioned there, but a whole article on this is just plain silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article explains why the subject is notable, and is very, very well sourced. Only someone who hasn't actually read the article would claim that the subject is not notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that do you mean that it is clear from the way the article is written that it's creator went out of their way to make explicit claims of notability as a sort of pre-defense to the inevitable challenges this article would face? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea what the intentions of the person who created the article were. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, given that you created the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you walked right into that one... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki - I just checked the article's edit history, and it turns out that you are correct. Thanks for telling me. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. If the creator of the article even doesn't remember that s/he created it S/he should go with delete considering notability. How funny... lol... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he created the article less than an hour before making this remark, I can only assume he was either kidding or being deceptive. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as its own article. A brief mention might be worthwhile. After all, we don't have an article on Dolly Parton's, um, endowments. (Sorry for the silliness, but sometimes you have to be absurd to make a point.) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her arms don't need their own article, and "Michelle Obama's arms" is an unlikely search term for a redirect. A few sentences in her main article is all that is called for here. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Shouldn't be its own article, but some of this information could go in her main article. — Jake Wartenberg 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Obama's arms may indeed be notable, but the content should be trimmed and merged into the main article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has references for notability and verifiability, there is plenty of precedent, see Category:Famous body parts. The only argument for delete is "I don't like it". Drawn Some (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a great point! Thanks for pointing out the existence of that category. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that list is an argument for why this article doesn't fit. I was expecting something like Tina Turner's legs, or something, but that's not even on the list. Most of those articles are on independent subjects that happen to be body parts, like Cromwell's head, which has an article because it's a museum piece, not because it was attached to him. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams is right - that category is not a good fit for the article in question here. Just to pick a few, Darwin's tubercle didn't belong to Charles Darwin, it's named after him; The Hands of Che Guevara is a movie; Head of Holofernes is a redirect to a painting; and Geronimo's skull, Medusa's head, Ebey's scalp and Bentham's head don't have their own articles - the category page links to sections of the main articles about these men (and gorgon.) Dawn Bard (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what will happen to her arms after she dies? Drawn Some (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm sad that we can't make cross-wiki categorizations and include wikt:King Charles' Head in that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These are not strong sources, nor do they really indicate the subject is notable, only that they were the subject of op-eds. I am amenable to a merge, but would probably prefer a delete. Shadowjams (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and write a simple mention in Michelle Obama. The rest is trivia worthy of the National Enquirer. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of this needs to be in her article, but not as a stand alone. Synergy 23:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 36,000 G-hits for "Michelle Obama's arms". Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand that, but to claim that it's not notable is absurd. Those aren't all op-eds or blogs, there are serious articles in well-respected newspapers. Don't understimate this woman's influence. It's been more than 40 years since something similar has occurred with the First Lady. Drawn Some (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most of us voting "delete" here are underestimating her influence at all - this is strictly about whether or not her arms deserve a separate article. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deserve a separate article? They certainly meet notability requirements so they certainly deserve an article. Drawn Some (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Putting undue weight on an entirely trivial subject. Probably not even important enough to even mention in her own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is for POV issues. The article is neutral. Drawn Some (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a controversy section. Discussion of whether "Obama's arms have too much muscle and not enough fat" is giving undue weight to tabloid gossip. Recognizance (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is a legitimate source, not a tabloid. I realize that newspaper circulcation is in serious decline, but it hasn't gotten that bad - at least not yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete per PMDrive and Umbralcorax. It brings to mind a recent segment Jon Stewart did: "Four years at Smith, two years of J-school, here we are, spending five minutes straight of ad-libbed lunch narration. I'll have the cyanide burger." See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama or as Stewart put it "Obama Murders Cow to Enjoy Pagan Lunch". Recognizance (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give the topic a one-sentence (no more) mention in the main article. The topic is not notable or encyclopedic enough for a stand-alone article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a trout for the creator. I would have thought if we were starting to write about the body parts of the politically connected that Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps would be the logical place to start. (In seriousness, the article creator should be admonished not to waste our time like this again.)Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is he wasting our time? We're not required to participate in this discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor seems to have made some good contributions in other areas, but causes trouble in and around articles related to the Obamas. His talk page archives reveal multiple contentious conversations on this topic, and at least two previous deletion discussions: [1] [2]. There have already been blocks and a suggestion of a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this will require a 7 day debate to get rid of this elaborate piece of garbage is a waste of wikipedia's time. It's a damaging joke. And given that the creator was briefly blocked yesterday (I thought at the time the block was over the top, but am beginning to see why some people's patience with this user might be running thin) for creating Impregnation of Sarah Palin's Daughter (well, actually he created Impregnation of Sarah Palin's Daugher but, whatever) you'd expect him to have a little more of a clue.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What about an article dedicated to "body parts of notable people"? (...and no, I'm not serious about that).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were multiple news articles from multiple major newspapers with "Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps" in the title, then yes, that would be a legitimate topic for a wikipedia article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thouroughly agree with Bali: "The fact that this will require a 7 day debate to get rid of this elaborate piece of garbage is a waste of wikipedia's time. It's a damaging joke. And given that the creator was briefly blocked yesterday (I thought at the time the block was over the top, but am beginning to see why some people's patience with this user might be running thin" The-Bus (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this subject is not notable, why are there so many articles about it from major sources? I'm not talking about articles with just a few sentences about the subject. I'm talking about article where the subject is in the title of the article. And if the subject is not notable, then why are there photo galleries about the subject too?

References

  1. ^ Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, The Boston Globe, March 19, 2009  2. ^ a b c How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, CNN  3. ^ Strong-arm tactics: First Lady of Fitness: Michelle Obama's guns inspire workouts, Chicago Sun-Times, March 10, 2009  4. ^ How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms, The Seattle Times, March 25, 2009 (This is a different article than the CNN article of the same name)  5. ^ Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again, The New York Times, February 25, 2009  6. ^ All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World, The Washington Post, January 21, 2009  7. ^ Michelle Obama and our buff-arm fetish, The Chicago Tribune, February 26, 2009  8. ^ Michelle Obama: The right to bare arms, MSNBC, February 25, 2009  9. ^ Michelle Obama bares arms in official White House portrait, Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009 10. ^ a b Michelle Obama's toned arms are debated, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009 11. ^ Obama's Choice to Bare Arms Causes Uproar, ABC News, March 2, 2009

External links

Gallery of Michelle Obama's arms at the Chicago Sun-Times
A different gallery of Michelle Obama's arms at Essence magazine

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't concur. Quote from above: "The Los Angeles Times is a legitimate source, not a tabloid." Indeed but the article is (a "tabloid piece") and simply said just trivia. We don't write separate "fashion" articles unless it is the subjects main notability (like a model for example). There is a "Style and fashion sense" section in her main article that covers already more than needed (before you "merged" the AFD article into it). Some minor material could be edited there but sure not a full merge and separate section title as it was already rejected. And BTW, there is no need to repeat the article's references as we all know where to find them ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. To call her arms trivial is to either misunderstand the English language or to refuse to research the topic. But I'm not sure that translates into her arms needing their own article. The information should be retained, but this subject could adequately be covered in the Michelle Obama article, in my opinion. --JayHenry (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~Re: merging, note that the entire contents of Michelle Obama's Arms have already been pasted into the Michelle Obama article.~~ It's been reverted. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*In that case, since it was done by the article's creator in apparent acknowledgment of the way this is obviously going, may I suggest that we simply redirect to Michelle Obama and close this up, and leave it to the editors of the target article to decide how much of the content to retain. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is trivial material. And please don't do us any favors over at Michelle Obama which is a GA and doesn't need to be a dumping ground. That material already has been removed from there - please decide this AfD on its own terms. Tvoz/talk 02:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it looked like an easy way out... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Okay, I might be veering off topic here, but can someone tell me why Sasha and Malia Obama don't have their own articles? Is it because notability is not inherited? I'm asking because I think that whatever guideline is used to prevent articles about the girls should also logically apply to the First Lady's arms. Sasha and Maliahave much more press than the arms. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it even more interesting about Sasha and Malia not having their own articles is that Bo, their dog, has his own article! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete I don't think it should be a separate article. Milik (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the attention is absurd, and obviously a great many people here think the same; however, the rest of the world thinks otherwise, as shown by the NYT doing a feature on the subject and its significance. It's that part, the significance, the weird cultural fact that people write articles about it in major news sources, that justifies an article here. Its not that the subject is intrinsically important, it's that people make a fuss about it that's important. DGG (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That justifies some content but not this article. The NYT is paid to write such stuff but that doesn't equate to actually being so important as to merit an entire article here. A possible solution would be to add appropriate to Michelle_Obama#Style_and_fashion_sense which itself may expand to become its own article. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Seriously, we're debating this? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Meets notability guidelines per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First off, I think it is a mistake for those favoring deletion to mock this topic, as if it were an established fact that it were trivial. This kind of mockery is a lapse from the wikipedia's civility policies. If you are serious, articulate your reasons, don't use mockery. I don't really follow fashion, but I can't help noticing that Michelle Obama's fashion sense is routinely compared with that of Jackie Kennedy. Nichelle Nichols#Star Trek has written of considering leaving the cast of the original Star Trek. She has described being told by Martin Luther King that he hoped she stayed because of the positive role model her character offered to young black girls. I'd like to point out that Jackie Kennedy has spin off articles that discuss her cultural significance. Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be in favour of an article about Michelle Obama's cultural significance. I just don't think that her arms are as notable as her cultural impact. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the main article already states: "She has been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy...". But has Jacqueline any spin-of article about her "body parts"?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy has a spin-off article: Cultural depictions of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. As I wrote above I favor broadening the scope of this article to address Obama's cultural impact. Geo Swan (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Broadening this article to cover her impact on fashion, or her broader cultural significance, makes sense. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I think we might have stumbled onto a pretty decent idea here. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If that policy doesn't cover this article, then it doesn't cover anything. WillOakland (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, may I suggest we add Jimmy Carter's Teeth, Richard Nixon's Jowls, and Jackie Kennedy's Hair? Does WP:NOTABLE have a section on body parts? Jimmy Durante's Nose? Eauhomme (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Everything in the article can be stuck in a sentence or two on the main article. A parallel: Barack Obama's lapel pin received a lot of press coverage, but it was sensationalist, and definitely didn't deserve its own article— just like this. --slakr^\ talk / 07:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a category under WP:CSD for stuff like this. Are you totally mad? This reminds me of the Lake Palmer discussion. --Pgallert (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to request -- again -- that respondents here comply with the wikipedia's deletion policies and civility policies. Please confine your comments to the issues, and refrain from mocking the sanity of those you disagree with.
- There is a meme that anything connected with women's fashion is always trivial. Elmo Zumwalt, Chief Naval Officer in the early seventies, on his tours of the USN's bases, used to meetings with the spouses. In his autobiography he noted the frustration expressed to him by the African-American wives. The PX outlets on Navy bases, often the only convenient places for them to shop, only carried cosmetics suited to white complexions. He noted that his order that PX outlets carry a broad enough range of cosmetics to serve all races was one of the orders that attracted the most (positive) comments. Geo Swan (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia and totally unencyclopedic Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As User:DGG pointed out above those guided by policy will disregard any personal feelings that a topic is trivial if that topic has received significant verifiable coverage in authoritative sources. Sorry, but why shouldn't the closing administrator regard all the opinions expressed here that characterize the topic as "trivial", without explanation, as lapses from WP:NPOV? Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It hasn't received any such coverage, though, and the rationale of "trivia" is not a lapse. A smattering of write-ups in fashion/lifestyle sections of media outlets is not a strong base of notability establishment. Perhaps you need to re-read the "presumed" part of WP:GNG? Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - When it is pointed out here that it is trivial, the closing editor can take that as a reference to the policy WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not every thing that is verifiable is encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you want some guidelines, WP:IINFO is the one which advises against creating articles on trivia like this and WP:BLPSTYLE states that articles on living people should be "written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". WP:TRIVIA is also at least partially relevant. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A sigh and a facepalm. Delete as a ridiculously trivial non-issue. At best, a one-liner in the Michelle Obama article. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus so far is overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, I have added a single sentence about this to the Michelle Obama article, and I have come to accept the fact that this article will almost certainly be deleted. However, I do not regret having started it, as it was well sourced, and I had fun writing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but ... I don't see how any celebrity's arms are going to be worth a separate article unless they have fewer or more than the canonical two. But many First Ladies have been important fashion influences -- Jacqueline Kennedy comes to mind -- and an article on Michelle Obama's wardrobe or something similar could easily accomodate all of the information set forth here and more besides. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable and the article is already quite well-developed. There doesn't seem to be the slightest reason to delete and the tut-tutting above seems just as stuffy as the fuss caused by her novel appearance. Our editing policy firmly indicates that we should keep this fine start. We might perhaps build it into a more general article about the first lady's fashion style but that is a matter of content editing not deletion. We should also note that coverage of fashion topics is poor on Wikipedia and that this is a systemic bias which we should not encourage. I have cited a respectable broadsheet in Britain which has good coverage of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really ridicolous page. How would someones arms be notable? Dexter000 ^{Hop, Skip} 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her arms are "notable" in the sense that they've been covered significantly in reliable sources, but they don't justify a separate article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Smerge to the article about Michelle Obama. It is unencyclopedic to have derivative articles about body parts of the family members of national leaders. Organizationally, it is better to mention her arms in the article which covers her in general. Similarly, there has been about as much press coverage of the arched shape of her eyebrows. Let's head off Michelle Obama's eyebrows. There was more coverage than this of Eisenhower's golf playing. But it does not need a separate article. There was far more press coverage of John Kennedy's hair, but it would be silly to have an article about it. There was more press coverage than this of Lyndon Johnson's gall bladder surgery scar, because he pulled up his shirt and showed reporters the scar. There was more coverage of Johnson lifting his dog by the ears. A photo of a hole in a shoe worn by presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1952 led to the campaign motto "Better a man with a hole in his shoe than one with a hole in his head," over 250 book and print discussions of the hole over the last 57 years, and a Pulitzer Prize for the photo, but it would be silly to have a separate article about the hole. Winston Churchill's cigars got more coverage than Michelle's arms. The arms of Michelle Obama get press mention only because they are the arms of a notable person, not because they are all that noteworthy in general, so the mentions are derivative, and the article should be deleted or merged per the essay WP:NOTINHERITED which expresses the views of a number of editors. Fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: not all verifiable information needs to be covered in depth in an encyclopedia. See also the essay Wikipedia:News articles. Edison (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources used are about Michelle Obama. They just happen to be focusing primarily on that aspect of her. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For humor's sake, if nothing else. 68.229.226.53 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELFPARODY. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, sorry this is the very definition of WP:Undue. If this material is to be covered get consensus on the main article where appropriate content may be approprite. I hardly see any extroidinary circumstances to highlight someone's bodyparts in this manner. -- Banjeboi 00:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, absolutely crazy. Maybe a line or two in Michelle Obama, but a whole page is ridiculous. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was about to echo Benjiboi above. This is undue weight placed, clear and simple. Exercise some common sense about what is expected to be covered here. MuZemike 01:21, 16 May 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.