The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Isn't this a bit too poltical for here? The opening statement literally boil down to "Trump is a big fat liar." If we had articles about how many presidents were taking the piss and how often, Wikipedia would be a lot bigger.
HalfShadow01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Political" is fine; POV is not. Do you see a
WP:NPOV violation? If so, where? Anyhow, there's nothing stopping you from making "Veracity of statements by [other president]" articles, as long as they're notable.
Wikiacc (
¶)
01:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Does the OP have any policy-based reason for deletion of this article? As was pointed out in the first AFD (a SNOW keep) this is a notable topic that has been extensively covered by reliable sources.
Meters (
talk)
01:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep do we really need to do this again? Aside from the fact that "Trump is a big-fat liar" is NPOV it is very much true and the veracity (or lack of) his statements is more than adequately covered by independent reliable sources.
Praxidicae (
talk)
01:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: My point is, you wouldn't see an entry in an encyclopedia titled "People Who Lie The Most." At best, this could be a subsection of Trump's actual entry, as opposed to it's own page.
HalfShadow02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep the only reason provided, too political is is not a deletion criteria and even if everyone agreed that the article as written was too political that would be a case for a rewrite not deletion.--
69.157.252.96 (
talk)
05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep — There is a massive amount of published coverage of this topic, in multiple reputable sources. This can't be trumped with an IDONTLIKEIT argument.
Carrite (
talk)
05:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This reads like potentially
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Obviously there's plenty of documentation for false statements made by Trump, but this article risks ballooning into an indiscriminate list of content that is only loosely related, which is something that is proscribed by
WP:NOTDIRECTORY and can be explained more at
WP:LISTCRUFT. It's easy to see why people may mistakenly believe that this article should be kept since it is obviously well sourced and the general topic is notable, but having it as a standalone article (rather than as a subsection of
Donald Trump or a subsection of the topics he is talking about) is not really encyclopedic. (And of course you can find a lot of news articles about Trump being dishonest, but that isn't enough to justify an article. Much has been said about 'Honest' Abe Lincoln but no one would suggest putting together an article
Veracity of statements made by Abraham Lincoln. Much has been said about Beyonce's talent but that won't be enough to save
Beyonce listography. It's not enough to accumulate sources that touch on an article in general terms).
Michepman (
talk)
05:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge back essential items to main article/or other appropriate place. Actually I am not impressed with this article, but with the sources it's hard to argue against. I know the Trump's main article's quite big and struggles with space but it would be far better thing for the Project if the essential content of this article is to be merged there and the rest random opinions to be discarded. Definitely you'll not find any article resembling this one in context or in title in any proper encyclopedia. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
06:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep and a trout to OP. I don't see any attempt to work this out on the talk page first. The subject is obviously very notable and properly sourced. The "political" argument is spurious. We don't AfD articles which disagree with our political POV. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work. We follow the sources. --
BullRangifer (
talk)
07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: as the topic itself did receive more than a fair share of significant coverage while satisfying
WP:NPOV as well from what I can see. Looking at some of the opposing views, I can see why
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH may be a concern, but ultimately I don't see a violation but will admit that perhaps a future edit or two could change that.
TruthGuardians (
talk)
07:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: Notable and well sourced. Negative facts are not against NPOV (as long as they're not given undue weight). Disregard for reality is Trump's brand, so the article should remain.
158.26.131.11 (
talk)
08:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Likely to be contentious for some editors, but this is a topic with a shed load of coverage in RS and so worthy of coverage in WP.
Alexbrn (
talk)
09:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Isn't this a bit too poltical for here? The opening statement literally boil down to "Trump is a big fat liar." If we had articles about how many presidents were taking the piss and how often, Wikipedia would be a lot bigger.
HalfShadow01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Political" is fine; POV is not. Do you see a
WP:NPOV violation? If so, where? Anyhow, there's nothing stopping you from making "Veracity of statements by [other president]" articles, as long as they're notable.
Wikiacc (
¶)
01:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Does the OP have any policy-based reason for deletion of this article? As was pointed out in the first AFD (a SNOW keep) this is a notable topic that has been extensively covered by reliable sources.
Meters (
talk)
01:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep do we really need to do this again? Aside from the fact that "Trump is a big-fat liar" is NPOV it is very much true and the veracity (or lack of) his statements is more than adequately covered by independent reliable sources.
Praxidicae (
talk)
01:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: My point is, you wouldn't see an entry in an encyclopedia titled "People Who Lie The Most." At best, this could be a subsection of Trump's actual entry, as opposed to it's own page.
HalfShadow02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep the only reason provided, too political is is not a deletion criteria and even if everyone agreed that the article as written was too political that would be a case for a rewrite not deletion.--
69.157.252.96 (
talk)
05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep — There is a massive amount of published coverage of this topic, in multiple reputable sources. This can't be trumped with an IDONTLIKEIT argument.
Carrite (
talk)
05:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This reads like potentially
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Obviously there's plenty of documentation for false statements made by Trump, but this article risks ballooning into an indiscriminate list of content that is only loosely related, which is something that is proscribed by
WP:NOTDIRECTORY and can be explained more at
WP:LISTCRUFT. It's easy to see why people may mistakenly believe that this article should be kept since it is obviously well sourced and the general topic is notable, but having it as a standalone article (rather than as a subsection of
Donald Trump or a subsection of the topics he is talking about) is not really encyclopedic. (And of course you can find a lot of news articles about Trump being dishonest, but that isn't enough to justify an article. Much has been said about 'Honest' Abe Lincoln but no one would suggest putting together an article
Veracity of statements made by Abraham Lincoln. Much has been said about Beyonce's talent but that won't be enough to save
Beyonce listography. It's not enough to accumulate sources that touch on an article in general terms).
Michepman (
talk)
05:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge back essential items to main article/or other appropriate place. Actually I am not impressed with this article, but with the sources it's hard to argue against. I know the Trump's main article's quite big and struggles with space but it would be far better thing for the Project if the essential content of this article is to be merged there and the rest random opinions to be discarded. Definitely you'll not find any article resembling this one in context or in title in any proper encyclopedia. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
06:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep and a trout to OP. I don't see any attempt to work this out on the talk page first. The subject is obviously very notable and properly sourced. The "political" argument is spurious. We don't AfD articles which disagree with our political POV. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work. We follow the sources. --
BullRangifer (
talk)
07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: as the topic itself did receive more than a fair share of significant coverage while satisfying
WP:NPOV as well from what I can see. Looking at some of the opposing views, I can see why
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH may be a concern, but ultimately I don't see a violation but will admit that perhaps a future edit or two could change that.
TruthGuardians (
talk)
07:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: Notable and well sourced. Negative facts are not against NPOV (as long as they're not given undue weight). Disregard for reality is Trump's brand, so the article should remain.
158.26.131.11 (
talk)
08:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Likely to be contentious for some editors, but this is a topic with a shed load of coverage in RS and so worthy of coverage in WP.
Alexbrn (
talk)
09:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.