Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Carter's rabbit

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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:47Z

Jimmy Carter's rabbit

Created to insert a bigger "controversy" about Jimmy Carter. There are alot of significant events in this biography but they don't get as much attention compared to what this person is giving regarding "Jimmy Carter's rabbit". ViriiK 09:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. wikipedia is not paper. It is not the topic's fault that the topic attracted a wikipedian. If we start discriminating by importance, wikipedia will be in big trouble `'mikka 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Nlu (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move to a subpage under Jimmy Carter. /Blaxthos 09:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If the article is NPOV and has sources I see no reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Jimmy Carter. It's a very minor incident, not enough to warrant an article. TJ Spyke 10:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is sourced and appears to be NPOV, but I do have to ask... does this event really mean anything for Jimmy Carter? Or for rabbits or related mammals? (If so, a merge would be appropriate). This appears to be dredged out a small series of news stories occuring in a very short space of time, with nothing appearing afterwards. The proposed Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline elaborates on how and why such articles can be inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as the title isn't very accurate and suggests Carter owned said rabbit. Maybe something like Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. A noted event that was covered by media and has also been cited numerous times in pop culture. (Cited by Robert Anton Wilson, for example, in his lecture Secrets of Power). I don't really see this fitting into the main article. In addition, having reviewed the nominator's statement above, I feel a warning may be in order unless the nominator can prove the article was created with the intent to "create controversy"; otherwise I feel it's an unwarranted statement made against another editor which violates Wikipedia policy. 23skidoo 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possible merge/renameIf the article is sourced and NPOV per Wiki guidelines I see no reason to delete - however there may be a case for renaming it per 23skidoo or moving to a Jimmy Carter incident subpage as suggested above. If per the nominator there are other incidents which deserve more attention, then if these could be identified a subpage could be created incorporating all such events, including this one. Addyboy 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename. Unquestionably notable; the event is still mentioned today.[1] NPOV problems with the article, if any, should be resolved by a tag and editing, rather than deletion. -- TedFrank 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename - I can understand the argument for a rename, but strongly believe tha tlike George W. Bush's pretzel, this is an event that captured the public imagination, and deserves an WP explanation. As creator, find it odd that nominator accuses me of being politically-motivated to attack Carter in the Jimmy Carter's rabbit AFD...then accuses me of being politically motivated in the George W. Bush's pretzel AFD they also started. Do I just hate everybody? :P Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back in to Jimmy Carter. The event may have been newsworth and the article may be NPOV and souced. Unlike, say, the Lewinsky scandal which was a major event and had lasting consequences for Bill Clinton there really isn't much to be said about the whole rabbit incident that cannot be accomplished with a small section in the parent article. All it really amounts to is a bit of presidential trivia. Arkyan 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename ideally. Failing that, then merge. I can see the merge argument given the somewhat trivial nature of the event, but the Jimmy Carter article is already pretty long, so my first choice would be to keep this one separate. Mwelch 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be expanded. There were many stories from the time of the incident to the present in sources such as the New York Times which no one has included yet, as well as a chapter in a book. Edison 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Carter article would be too long if this was merged there, and clearly it is a notable incident. Plus it has pictures! Nathanalex 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this thing almost killed the president. Nardman1 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename, notable, but I think it is too much of a side topic to merge into Jimmy Carter's article. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename and reword any non-NPOV parts of the article. Jules 12:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lampman 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Everyking 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Expand the article, don't delete it. JRG 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as demonstrated above, continued expansion would be beneficial. Yamaguchi先生 05:51, 18 March 2007 (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.