Deletion of George H.W. Bush vomiting incident

Comment: to GHWB article per #NEWS.  A trivial moment that was forgotten shortly after Clinton became president.  Notability is forever, and this is already forgotten
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per . This was a http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=president+bush+vomit+japan&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&cid=8555609213370397 widely http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=president+bush+vomit+japan&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&cid=8555609213370378 covered event with plenty of sources that just need to be added to the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Merge into a 1-liner in the Bush article. The only 'facts' here are that he threw up, on this day, in this place - hence a 1-line mention will be fine. At present, it puts an inappropriate spin on an incident about someone being ill - describing it as a 'gaff' is not appropriate. Although there is indeed press coverage, that doesn't mean it necessarily deserves an article - it is definitively  (the subject is, I mean). If, in the fullness of time, the facts in the Bush article are expanded to the point where a separate article is required, then fair enough - but for now, this article is not required
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per .  If something like this happened to a less prominent person, and yet for some reason received extensive coverage, it would be worth including in the bio article.  Here, the problem with merging is that the bio of a U.S. President has so many more important things to cover, that information that would make the cut in another bio gets crowded out here.  The way for us to provide more detailed information while keeping the main article at a reasonable length is to use daughter articles.  The alternatives are merge (probably too much weight in the Bush bio) or delete completely (loses verifiable information about a well-publicized event that future readers might want to know about).  Keeping this article is a better solution than either of those
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

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: horrendous violation of . Nothing more than a minor incident that the article blows out of all proportion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per #NEWS, ''Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.'' This is an isolated incident without any historical context, a mention in the president's article should be sufficient
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)