Deletion of Presidential prevarications (United States)

Comment: Need a policy? See |verifiability and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: My above four reasons: POV warring hasn't happened; if it does, we'll deal with it then and even if it does, it will probably a good thing. It isn't partisan (both R and D presidents are included). The subject of which lies to include will always be subject to debate, but it's very similar to  and ; we're talking notable lies, important ones, whoppers. The article is well referenced. Last, it holds politicians feet to the fire; if they LIE, they go in WIKIPEDIA. An incentive to TELL THE TRUTH. And, moreover, let me just say, although this ISN'T a valid Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but it IS for me; this article is fun
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: as |unverifiable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I'd like to reiterate from the article creator above: '' "Fourth, I think this IS the PRECISE TYPE OF ARTICLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. It merits inclusion because it holds ALL presidents accountable. If they LIE, they go here in Wikipedia. It's an incentive for current and future presidents to TELL THE TRUTH. That's what Wikipedia is all about, in my view." '' To quote from Jed Bartlett, "there it is." This article is |the creator's soapbox, and just on that alone - never mind the BLP or the POV issues - this article cannot stand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: per nom. The article's topic has severe problems with |bias in that a president's detractors are likely to seize on any misstatement as being a lie, while his supporters are likely to try to seek excuses or attempt to prove that his statement was accurate or at least not an intentional lie. This problem is likely to be most apparent with regard to recent presidents such as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, which also raises the issue of |recentism. There is also an issue with regard to defining what a lie is. I would not consider a broken promise to be a lie, unless the promiser never intended to fulfill the promise. Several of the alleged lies in the article are really just broken promises, and that's not the same thing. And what do we do about things like Obama's claim to have visited http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp "57 states" during his campaign (not currently listed in this article, but then no Obama statements currently are)? Obviously, that wasn't a true statement, but does that make it a lie ''per se''? (The following are additional problems which may not necessarily be reasons for deletion: Note that the article currently identifies only two "prevarications" made by any of the first 31 presidents. Unfortunately, I believe it is much more likely that editors will try to supply evidence of lies by Clinton, Bush, and Obama than by Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James Buchanan, thus leaving this article perpetually biased toward covering lies by the recent presidents. And the article has some irrelevant material, such as Parson Weems' myth about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, which was not said by Washington himself, but ''about'' him after his death, and Abraham Lincoln's joke about being "two-faced". Finally, the article contains an excessive number of footnotes used merely to prove the order of the presidents, which is in no dispute anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RECENT)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:ATTACK)

Comment: The essay is incredible POV. Selective bolding of words show the POV. Also, the idea of counting "lies" told during public statements in the interest of national security as being the same as lies told under oath about getting a blowjob is apples and oranges. The format (the boxes) don't allow for significant comparison by differing POV's. Instead it just says "here is the truth" as a statement of fact. Was Nixon a "crook"? That would depend on how you define crook, wouldn't it? When I hear "crook", I think thief. Nixon lied. Is that being a "crook"? Depends on who you ask, but this thing simply says "he was". Runs afoul of ,  and possibly  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:SYNTH||WP:COATRACK)