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 redirect and userfy quick-like - per TonyTheTiger's request, and general consensus as it stands and is likely to progress. Things that can be merged should be merged into the main article proper, of course. Since the article writer is collecting information on the first 100 days for this article, it's just as well that his userspace contains a repository of sources and material for general use. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's first 100 days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is not encyclopaedic but lies purely within journalism and speculation. No information of historical value is cited and therefore should be Deleted per: WP:ENC and WP:NOT#INFO, if not merged with Obama Presidency or presidency transition. Get over Obamamania and stay encyclopedic.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama, at least for now. Right now, this article can only be recentism or crystalballism. If, in a few months or a year, the first 100 days of his Presidency are of lasting, identifiable historical significance, a suitable separate article can be written then. No need for it now. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. There's enough verifiable information there that deleting it outright would be a mistake. But there really isn't enough there (yet) to warrant a full article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and encourage the authors to contribute to other WP articles on the Obama presidency. The problem with this one is that it's a prediction of the future, in violation of WP:Crystal ball. Only people to whom history gives the label "Hundred Days" for a period of their lives should get a 100 days article. Redddogg (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not a prediction that he will have a first 100 days. It is a fact. This article is for greater detail than will be permissible in the Presidency article. Each president should have an article about his first hundred days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even William Henry Harrison? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 22:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Says a prayer of protection for President Obama and his family.) I hate to have to say this but there is no certainty that he will have 100 days in office. A larger point is that there is no reason to think that history will find his 100 days significant.Redddogg (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. There is reason to think that his first 100 days will be talked about with that label. But not enough reason to write an article about it here before it happens. I could also mention that people are watching WP's coverage of this and if we write an article before something happens it could be used to hold us up to ridicule. Redddogg (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. First, it hasn't happened yet, so it doesn't even exist; talk about unverifiability. It's nearly certain that his first hundred days will be historical, but let's not say they are until at least part of them happen. Second—and I hate even talking about this—Redddog is right. I'm just now leaving for the inauguration, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that nothing happens. I'm an atheist, and even I'm praying here. Graymornings_(talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge/Redirect, etc. (basically non-keep as it is): I would think this might have a chance if the 100 days becomes symbolic on hindsight but right now its just non-notable/not yet historic/has not happened. Remember he has to actually be successfully sworn in first and then make it beyond day one, day two, etc. bit by bit and nobody can be certain of going beyond Tuesday. Also I have concerns about the title. From a long-term point of view it is extremely vague and, looking at it here as I type, the first of many possibilities that enter my mind is that the article could quite easily be describing the finer moments of the early months of his life. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Delete this article and start The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency in late April, early May, whenever. Redddogg (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible. Although again there is no certainty of that happening yet. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there doesn't seem to be an article on the general concept of a "first hundred days" of a United States presidency. Certainly notable. Redddogg (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Especially more than the President of France or the President of Ireland? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closest appears to be New Deal#The First Hundred Days, which originated the meme. Emurphy42 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems close enough to me. An extremely detailed section oughtn't to require its own article surely? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Don't fall asleep and Candlewicke. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There should be a provisional status applied to this article during the 100 day period in question. Once the 100 day period ends, we can vote on whether the article can stand on its own or be merged into another more general heading. Gaurra (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done just fine in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. Hell, there's even a "First 100 days" section already (it just has a {{mainarticle}} link to this one). Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. so what happens when I add details about the first 100 days and someone says that is too much detail for an article on his presidency.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have this discussion again. Consensus can change, and that's even assuming we have a consensus for delete/merge here. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's why I didn't come down strongly for one side or the other. I think it's important, however, that if the discussion does come up again, we don't take the result of the present discussion as determining what we might do in the future. This discussion only relates to the article under the current circumstances. Lampman (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess we could merge it, but I've got a feeling we might have to recreate it – or something similar – later on, per WP:SS. Articles of this kind tend to get excessively large; the Barack Obama article is 136k and even the transition article is almost 80k. Lampman (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the presidency article. The "special status" given to the first 100 days of a presidency is something that has been applied in journalism, but I see no need to do so here. First, while I agree that (barring disaster) it's not crysal balling to say Obama's presidency will have 100 days. It is crystal balling to assume that the first 100 days will be any more notable than the second 100 days. Or the third 100 days. In fact, if you look at the presidency of GW Bush his first 100 days were rather NN; it was his second (or third) 100 days -- the period that included 9/11 -- that were considered the notable section. I have no objection to recreating this article after a period of time elapses (and not 102 days) if the first 100 days of his presidency do indeed take on a notability independent from the second 100, the first year, the second year, etc etc. But there will need to be third party accounting to indicate that the first 100 days stood out in some form from a comparative period of time within his presidency. 23skidoo (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that's really the issue. The article as it exists now is not so much about the notability of the 100 days themselves, as it is about the expectations of that period, in the press and even according to the president-elect himself. And a lot has been written, in reliable sources, about the first 100 days. Lampman (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Other stuff exists. The difference between the present subject and that of Bush's first hundred days was that Wikipedia then, likewise to Bush's presidency, was only in its first months of breathing oxygen (in fact Bush's first inauguration occured when Wikipedia's umbilical cord was still attached to Nupedia) whereas now the lenght of Wikipedia's beard is -- um, to the tune of a dozen million articles! ↜Just me, here, now … 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we still don't have an article about George W. Bush's first 100 days, almost eight years later, even though that could have been done retrospectively. Nor do we have such articles for Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or most other presidents. I don't see how we can judge that Barack Obama's first 100 days will be worthy of a separate article before they have even taken place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have a George W. Bush 2005 presidential inauguration, George W. Bush 2001 presidential inauguration, Bill Clinton 1997 presidential inauguration, or Bill Clinton 1993 presidential inauguration. However, Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration was created before it occured.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any relevant info is already in Presidential transition of Barack Obama. The rest is WP:SYNTH. Graymornings_(talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into Presidency of Barack Obama. Happyme22 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama. Information will likely overlap greatly. Jason (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, it is going to overlap. It will just be greater detail.
    • No advantage to it being seperate. Jason (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: wait until his first 100 days are over, if anything extremely notable happens, then we keep.  Marlith (Talk)  04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The concept of the "first 100 days" is basically a journalistic construct, not an actual aspect of a presidency. There is no particular significance to a president's first "100 days" except as a peg for reporters to write unusually boring articles about. No doubt some of Obama's initiatives will begin during the first 100 days but not be completed until afterwards. The article also states that "During the first hundred days in office, presidents are highly scrutinized...." Judging from all the presidencies I can remember, presidents are also highly scrutinized for the rest of their terms as well, which takes most of the significance out of that statement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What is significant about this specific time frame? We could agree on a system in the future, like an article for each year of the presidency, but this seems too arbitrary. Grandmasterka 08:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Creating it before it happens is silly, and after it happens we won't be measuring it by some arbitrary 100-day boundary. Delete. ciphergoth (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not arbitrary. The first 100 days of an American president is a long standing benchmark ([http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/how-fdr-made-the-presidency-matter/?ref=opinion since FDR) to determine their early sucess, and how much they were able to acomplish in that time period. Epson291 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could any closing administrator userfy this upon deletion so that the history is saved at User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's first 100 days. I suspect the argument will be a little bit different in about 100 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There really isn't any precedent for this in terms of when Wikipedia was created. The first 100 days is encyclopedic within an U.S. political context (I am unaware of it in other countries). Tomorrow the 100 days have begun, and executive orders will start coming, no crystal ball there, KEEP. Epson291 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a major WP:CRYSTAL violation. Grsz¹¹ 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt until April 30th at the very earliest Physchim62 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - talk about crystal ball over-splitting. The Presidency of Barack Obama is barely established beyond stub level, there is no possible reason to split out from something that hasn't even started yet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Jehorn (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama. No need to delete, as it's well-sourced and the sources will only improve beginning tomorrow, but there's a better target article for it. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Agree with several of the editors above that the subject of the article hasn't occurred yet, and as it is purely speculation at this point, it shouldn't exist until the first hundred days have passed. Wikipedia is not a record of opinions. The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Presidency of Barack Obama. The article's content can only be considered relevant within the context of Obama's transition and inauguration as president. Imagine yourself 10 years ahead from now - would one really consider Obama's mere 100 first days in office as being noteworthy enough to deserve their own article? I doubt it. --m3taphysical (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any appropriate verfiable information to Presidency of Barack Obama as appropriate. I don't think it's really a "crystal ball" violation as the content as presented is generally reporting on speculation rather than being speculative itself. However I'm not convinced that at this stage the topic warrents a seperate page or that it can even be definded as a seperate topic given the somewhat mishmash nature of how it is sourced and put together. Guest9999 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until such time as something happens to make the first 100 days significant. We won't know until at least 102 days from now whether or not there should be an article about this topic. --B (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for three reasons. First, Obama's first hundred days took place in 1961; if the article means to refer to his Presidency, the title should reflect that. Second, will we have articles for the other 14.5 hundred-day periods in his term? Third, we're crystallballing at this point: yes, he'll almost certainly serve 100+ days in office, but we really don't know if they'll be notable as a stand-alone article yet, as they might well be for FDR (or the 100-Hour Plan). At this point, there's plenty of space in the Presidency of Barack Obama article (5.4 kb as opposed to 47 kb for GW Bush), so a second-best option is to merge any useful content there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is a placeholder until something significant occurs during the first 100 days of Obama's administration. No need to make other articles huge in size until after the first 100 days. Acps110 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we create Barack Obama Star Trek XIV scandal as a placeholder just in case there is a scandal involving Barack Obama and someone dressed as a Borg at the premier of Star Trek XIV? Creating an article when nothing significant has actually happened isn't a great idea. --B (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there is a distinct difference between something that has a very high probability of happening (Obama's first 100 days) versus something that has a very low chance of happening. Being proactive is not a bad thing when dealing with near certainties. — Deckiller 04:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you assess the probability that something significant and article-worthy will happen? I'll give you a better example. We have an article Movement to impeach George W. Bush. It's a dead certainty that at some point over the next four or eight years, someone is going to bring a resolution of impeachment. Should we go on and create Movement to impeach Barack Obama for when that happens? No, of course not. Nor should we create this article when nothing significant has happened yet. --B (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is completely different, and a stretch example at best. Obama is to be sworn in as the next president of the United States. There are far more tangibles with this concept than, say, whether he gets a significant and notable impeachment movement against him. I'm sure there are plenty of roadmaps in reliable sources of what his first hundred days will bring (much like many articles on future topics on Wikipedia) — perhaps someone should look into that. Either way, I think it's inefficient to keep this in a standalone article in its current state. Until more reliably cited information is found, the article should be merged. — Deckiller 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article is well sourced with references, I don't see how its a press release. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent article — there is not enough information or sources based specifically on the first 100 days to convince me that a standalone article is needed right now. Turn it into a section of a main article; when it gets too long, split it into a subarticle. As an aside, I find the comment at the end of Dimorsitanos' statement extremely questionable; please leave such comments to yourself, as they can be considered condescending and are simply unrelated to the debate at hand. — Deckiller 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a useful topic; we should cover things that happen, not pointless groupings of things that happen. --NE2 09:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama for now; perhaps allocate separate article later. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/100-days

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/100days/main503723.shtml

--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Since the Presidency of Barack Obama is still in the future, the significance of any part of the Presidency's length is still speculative and should be put into an article if and when that length of time becomes significant. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and redirect per request by User:TonyTheTiger above. Certainly a nice article could be made, but it would have to be written from an historical perspective. There is no reason to yet have this article.-RunningOnBrains 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful topic. Will further grow. Historical significance demends the article be kept. --Effer^AKS 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not stand alone as separate article; not encyclopedic by itself. Would an article under this title be found in a printed encylopedia? Information under a title of this nature should be added in Presidency of Barack Obama. Benjamin Dominic (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now. Currently /anything/ about Obama's presidency falls under the first 100 days, and so we have two articles about the same exact subject. 100 days from now, we can look back and decide if it makes sense to split out into a separate article. --bd_ (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - while I see the benefits of merging into a new article, I think it's important that updates can be placed on a separate page: Presidency of Barack Obama and Barack Obama's page itself will both become too large. MarkRobbins (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Indiscriminate criterion, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per you guys are sad. Plasmatics (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - As of yet, there is nothing in this article (and it is too short) to justify a separate article. Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama Scapler (talk) 12:35, 21 January 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.