Deletion of List of United States presidential firsts

Comment: per : "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion". It is possible to come up with a practically infinite number of presidential firsts, e.g. George Washington|first redhead, James Garfield|first left-handed, Woodrow Wilson|first (and only) PhD, etc., etc. Also delete I've nominated List of United States presidential candidate firsts for deletion too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per .  Anything actually relevant can be included on each president's page.  This page is mostly trivia, and is very much an indiscriminate collection of information.  Just because information exists in this world doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to reproduce it as a list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: there are issues, but nothing |that can't be fixed by ordinary editing. Again, AfD is not for cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: this fails  and  (which does not technically exclude these types of articles, but this is a ''classic'' example of a terrible, all-trivia article.) The question really is: does this belong? While some non-Wikipedia sources do cover presidential firsts, they're typically just lists of trivia. The topic is probably notable in some way, but I have absolutely no idea how to salvage this article. I'd probably recommend giving it a stay of execution and selectively merging the important information to the presidential pages. Therefore, also calling into a bit of , I'm basing my delete !vote on something found in : {{tq|A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list.}} This is a classic example of a disorganised, unselective list, and in a way that does not appear to be fixable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:TRIVIA||WP:IAR||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: It is  none the less but per the nominator it is essentially trivia and indiscrimate information. A lot of original research and  also seems to show
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The test for such a list is not what we editors think about it – see .  No, what matters is  – whether "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".  A quick search soon finds respectable coverage of presidential firsts such as ''https://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/24/archives/presidential-firsts-mosts-and-almosts-who-was-the-first-us.html New York Times''; ''https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-firsts-idUSN0459554720080204 Reuters''; ''https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2019/02/surprising-presidential-firsts/ Saturday Evening Post
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDLI||WP:LISTN)

Comment: per  Informational lists like this are kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: per Dream Focus and Lightburst and for reasons right above.  is too easily addressable to be a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)