Deletion of Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama

Comment: non-neutral POV, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: and do not merge.  This article is clearly a POV fork and the majority of the sources fail , , and a whole host of others
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: 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  issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: for the  reasons detailed above. Can't imagine how an article with this title could ''ever'' be an acceptable article by our standards. Talk about random
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: 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 {{user|Skomorokh}} in his analysis of this article.  As an aside, the formatting/sectioning of this discussion is atrocious
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:PSTS)

Comment: per . 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&mdash;though it relates to an issue that has caused some to criticize Obama&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;whether they are about Obama or any other person who receives obsessive press coverage&mdash;violate the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OCE)

Comment: has obvious POV issues, but I'll submit my !vote solely on Wikipedia policy and guidelines: Meets , supplies  which support 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: OK, I changed my mind about the Jon Stewart's 2009 controversy with CNBC|Cramer-Stewart article, but this one really ''is'' . Pure ecentism|recentism and |POV |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:R||WP:POV||WP:SYN)

Comment: as  G10: article which "serves no purpose but to disparage its subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)