Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump orb (2nd nomination)

Trump orb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This should be given the same treatment as "Longcat" was in 2006; delete and salt. KMF (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has extensive sourcing, it is hard to see how this does not meet wp:GNG. --doncram 03:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the proposer's rationale sums it up. Should we add "Not Know Your Meme" to WP:NOT?  Volunteer Marek  04:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:RECENTISM was responsible for making this brief media story appear more significant than it truly was. No WP:LASTING impact resulted from this and let us try to remember wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Make Wikipedia Great Again by deleting this article and enforcing WP:NOT. Believe me, it will be amazing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – well sourced article with significant media attention. MB298 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Not meme" is not policy and it's not true as Wikipedia contains articles about hundreds of memes from All your base are belong to us to Zinedine Zidane. We even have a substantial category of political memes. So, instead, our actual policy is that Wikipedia is not censored which means that we don't delete stuff just because some busybody doesn't like it. Andrew D. (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"NOTCENSORED"? Seriously? NOTCENSORED is NOT "anything I happen to like". Volunteer Marek  08:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTCENSORED has to do with content that's potentially offensive to someone, not all content that's just of questionable basic notability. And we maintain articles about memes that can demonstrate enduring significance that passes the ten-year test, not just every meme that exists. Also, Zinedine Zidane cleared our notability standards for footballers quite independently of any meme status he did or didn't have, so he's in no way a reason why it would be necessary to keep this. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge Anything involving Trump is going to generate intense coverage, we need more than that to demonstrate that this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. We'll have articles on the number of ice cream scoops he receives if we don't show some restraint. Portions of this may be useful at 2017 Riyadh summit though.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While it is true that the subject got extensive coverage at the time, not everything that the media focus on is worthy of a dedicated article on an encyclopedia. All those sources are solely centered on a news spike that only lasted for a week. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. LM2000 is right that at the depth of media coverage that Trump generates, we could eventually end up having to keep an article about every single object he so much as touches if the only standard we applied is "did it get a blip of press coverage at the time". To actually warrant an article, however, this would need to pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, which I'm not seeing any evidence that it does. LM2000 is also correct that a small amount of content about this at the article on the Riyadh summit would be acceptable, but it doesn't need its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Donald Trump in popular culture. Orb does not warrant its own article and should be included in the mentioned subarticle. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia. Neutrality^talk 19:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  None of the WP:NOT arguments work, not even the newly made up one.  This is not trivia, it is not not encyclopedic, and it doesn't get deleted because it is a meme.  Nor does it belong merged to another article.  It is just basic application of WP:GNG, which a review of the sources listed in the articles shows that it easily meets.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2017 Riyadh summit. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Violates WP:NOT, fails WP:N AND WP:GNG. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Of the 45 sources currently in the article, all fall within the first 2 weeks of the initial reporting and 80%+ fall within the first 3 days. Current "GNEWS searches". provides very few sources after the first 2 weeks and the few that appear after that period, "1"., "2"., "3"., "4"., none contain significant coverage. Clearly after 3 months this article does not have enduring notability. Neither WP:N and WP:GNG apply as both exclude stand alone articles that violate WP:NOT. CBS527^Talk 13:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - Why does this article exist? This is pure WP:NOT. Jdcomix (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that violates and is WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Mr. Anon515 15:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]