Deletion of George W. Bush pretzel incident

Comment: if it had happened to a celebrity and made headlines, it would fail .  As it happened to the US President, it transcends into history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per . This is so beneath the definition of notable or news that it's absurd. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not amassing a journal of every temporal time slice that's ever been documented.  There is still the wider web for that.  The only reason this could possibly be notable is if a significant line of notable thought emerges that this was a coverup for something else, which is credible given what seem to be unanswered questions, but so far as I know pure speculation.  (In that event, we would re-create an article with the new information, not keep this one until some imagined conspiracy theory congeals.)  Choking on one's food while watching a game is simply not notable enough to deserve its own encyclopedia article, no matter who does it and no matter how many snarky hacks decide to recall the incident as if it were meaningful.  The DeeDee Meyers quote is hilarious but "it's funny" isn't reason for an article.  It does give some perspective though.  Would this be an article if it were Prince Charles pretzel incident?  How about Britney Spears pretzel incident?  Achmadinejad pretzel incident?  What about George Washington pretzel incident?  Do I understand the justification to be that he is the president and it happened to him and people wrote about it and so it deserves an article?  Nnnno.  One of the most offensive arguments at Wikipedia is "If I can find something that just might squeak by as WP:RS—I get to make an article!" which is akin to "It's a meme! Jay Leno just quipped about it! Put it in an article!"  This is topped only by the martyr-ish "I read it in a blog, sourced to an Op/Ed, so I'm adding it to/making an article even though I know it'll get deleted/AfDed, because now it's forever linked to the subject at Wikipedia through the article history/talk page archive".  Increasingly for the last twenty or thirty years, people write about ''everything'' the president does, not because it's informing the public about what they need to know to carry out their own civic responsibilities in a democracy but because they have to fill time or come up with a scoop or just want to poke until they can deflate somebody; most of this does not deserve its own encyclopedia article.  As to the other incidents to which it is compared, it seems the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident happened during a private moment, similar to the pretzel incident but without the bodily trauma or conspiracy theory, and would be notable only insofar as it would illustrate how the press distorts a story to fit their own larger storyline Strong Delete or expansion for context; the George H.W. Bush vomiting incident is somewhat similar although perhaps more notable because it happened in an international forum (again, people vomit when they have a virus; they generally don't vomit at the dinner table or on heads of state, but then, most other people are free to decline a dinner invitation when they're ill) Weak Delete; and the Shoe-throwing incident ''is'' notable as Bush was in that room to deliver a speech to the press and the thrower was a member of the press who went to jail for the incident—which was intended and not merely inferred to be representative, Bush brought a war and poorly-run military occupation upon the country and expected them to throw flowers, but instead they threw shoes Strong Keep.  This has nothing to do with whether it's embarrassing, and I am not being partisan here.  I have seen people want to delete mentions of legislation passed by a president.  There are guidelines on limiting the chartings included in a musical artist discography.  We need to maintain certain thresholds for what an encyclopedia shines a spotlight on by giving something its own article, and whether there are two reliable sources or two hundred, this article is neither encyclopedically notable nor useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per nom. Nobody could argue that this has "''historical notability''" (see #NEWS) - it's trivia, not even worth a mention in the main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per DGG.  I'm impressed with David's reasoning in this and the parallel AfD on the Bush 41 barfing incident. Although they might seem on the surface to be similar kinds of incidents, throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister in 1992 created an international and widely reported diplomatic incident and therefore should be kept (and I voted to keep there).  But this pretzel incident was in private, did not have any serious repercussions and is therefore basically a footnote for Bush 43. Even if they both had the same news coverage, this one isn't sufficiently notable to have a separate article. Adding a mention to the main article on dubya would be sufficient, IMO. Note that the ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'' apparently referred to it as "... a mere hiccup." If sufficient credible and reliable sources arise that make this significantly more notable and verifiable (ie - a stroke, TIA, or something else) than it seems now, then write a new article. But for now, delete per the thrust of the various delete arguments. We don't do 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: satisfies . Topic has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject. Also, it is an interesting and noteworthy example and should be expanded to include an analysis and commentary from secondary sources on the White House Medical Unit in action responding to a notable medical patient
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: and salt (pun intended).  I had never even heard of this?  Will there be an article on John Adams nude swimming incident, Abraham Lincoln sleeping with other men incident, and the ever popular John F. Kennedy sleeping with other women incidents?  All of these "incidents" were written about a century+ later (in two cases) ... I doubt we will be seeing any books/articles on "Bush chokes on pretzel" in 2100 (perhaps regionally in Texas, but I will figure likely not in the rest of the world).  I know an argument to avoid in deletion debates is "other stuff exists" ... but can I argue "other stuff doesn't exist"?  Just in case, I will argue delete per #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I believe this is exactly the kind of article  perfectly encapsulates. Yes there are plenty of sources, but that's not the only consideration here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)