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.

The result was keep‎. Per WP:SNOW, I am closing this discussion early because it is clear that it will have no other outcome. This discussion was previously closed, also using the WP:SNOW rationale, but the closer reopened the discussion after some editors objected to the close on their user talk page. Respectfully, I disagree that SNOW is inappropriate. SNOW does not require unanimity—we employ SNOW as a pragmatic, time-saving measure in cases where it is evident that further discussion has negligible chance of changing the outcome. This is one of those cases. A portion of the small minority of the editors who argue that the page should not be kept have pointed to WP:NOPAGE to argue that, while the article's subject may be notable, it makes more sense from an editorial standpoint to write about it in the context of the broader Georgia election racketeering prosecution article. Another portion points to WP:NOTNEWS to argue that, while it's clear the article's subject is newsworthy, it may be premature to determine if it is encyclopedia-worthy. The participants here have broadly rejected those arguments, describing the image as historically significant and pointing to the depth of coverage that exists about it as evidence. Mz7 ( talk) 03:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mug shot of Donald Trump

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Mug shot of Donald Trump (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Initially WP:BLAR'd by LilianaUwU, but contested. Per WP:NOPAGE, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; the subject is adequately covered in the article Georgia election racketeering prosecution and it would be better to cover this as one topic rather than making what amounts to a premature content fork. For these reasons, this should be blanked-and-redirected to the aforementioned article, where the subject would be better covered. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Widely described as a historic photograph, the most iconic photograph of a US president ever taken. Highly anticipated and subject of extensive media commentary even for months before it was taken, and extensive commentary and analysis after it was published. Clearly notable as a photograph. In my view its notability, its notoriety, and its iconic status extend far beyond the investigation and prosecution in Georgia; therefore, merging it with any of the Georgia articles is not appropriate. (I'm the creator of the article) -- Tataral ( talk) 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Come on, this is all over national media and is historic for any U.S. president and is notable in its own right. Even Nixon never had a mug shot taken of him at any point. Being relevant to the prosecution of Trump doesn't make it not notable in its own right. Master of Time ( talk) 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I am not contesting this photo's notability. To the contrary, WP:NOPAGE is about where we cover notable topics and how that information is organized on Wikipedia. There are cases, such as this one, where several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. It makes sense to handle this as one page rather than prematurely forking this. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Georgia election racketeering prosecution as the one who originally BLARed it. I've said it already, but indeed, the subject is covered well enough in the article I originally redirected it to, it doesn't need a fork. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

As weird as it is, I'm switching my !vote to keep - there's way too many sources, and the article is pretty fleshed out, for this to be not an obvious keep. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 20:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep – This is, arguably the most important picture taken of a United States President, current or former. This is national history and this picture will be in textbooks in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.149.209 ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Most of the content is about the booking and not about the mug shot itself. It's premature to say that the photo itself is notable due to being historic. Antony–22 ( ^talk⁄ _contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Photography, and Crime. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution - I am unsure about this article's coverage being WP:SUSTAINED in the future and I do not want to WP:CRYSTAL it. Also, not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Georgia (U.S. state). — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution Works best within that context. Not much to say about the photo itself. TarkusAB ^{talk/ contrib} 02:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. This is undoubtedly an extremely iconic image, but I doubt there's much to be said about the image itself. It fits more within context of the racketeering case. Alexthefinolian ( talk) 02:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Alexthefinolian, if you read the references in the article, you will see that reliable sources already have much to be said about the image itself. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep The topic is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article, considering it is the only mugshot of a US president. There are a few problems with the article talking too much about context rather than the actual photo, but these can be fixed rather than deciding to delete the article entirely 82.35.44.68 ( talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Ultimately there's not much to be said about the photo besides the fact that it exists and that it's historical. If the subject grows beyond just "this is an important mugshot", it should have a page. I have changed my vote to keep now that is has a sizable reception section and the article is about more than just the photo existing. Di (they-them) ( talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close as there is .000001% chance of this being deleted. This is not a situation where we need the eyes of XfD to have a merger discussion, all articles related to that man have sufficient eyes. Have a merger discussion on the Talk. The nomination is not disruptive, but it stands zero chance of deletion, so let's not waste seven days. Star Mississippi 02:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Well, I think that RFC is wrong, but apparently it's how we do things, so updating this to just a IAR Close with the same reason as before. Star Mississippi 03:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Per RfC (the result of which is reflected in the text of WP:BLAR itself), contested blars are generally to be handled at AfD, so I think this is the appropriate venue. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  that's ... silly (the answer, not your response). Amended, but I still think it's a waste of seven days. Star Mississippi 03:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Personally, I support invoking WP:IAR for this close. 7 days is too long for this deletion notice to remain prominent. — siro χ o 03:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  +1. WP:SNOW close (as not being deleted), invoking WP:IAR if needed. Talk page discussion would imo be a much better venue (to determine whether to redirect or not) given the circumstances. Will list on WP:ANRFC if it’s not already there. A smart kitten ( talk) 09:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution for now. Donald Trump may have a ton of indictments, but he is not officially behind bars. How it may affect the 2024 Election is up to speculation, but it hasn't happened yet. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Changed vote to Keep - Donald Trump's first Twitter post-ban was a picture of his mugshot, alleging election interference. It's also his first post on X.com. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 06:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The topic has incredible notability, sustained news coverage, and will likely keep its notability well into the future, to the point where it should be able to stand as an article of its own. The article can be reworked to focus on the photograph itself and the reactions to it, rather than the booking. Muhibm0307 ( talk) 02:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Close: This just happened. Wait until the buzz dies down. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 03:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep as obviously notable and one of the most important images of a US president GLORIOUSEXISTENCE ( talk) 03:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. Absolutely notable. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 03:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is context in the existing article that probably isn't appropriate at the suggested merge target, so the WP:NOPAGE suggestion might not apply. Let's consider revisiting this once it's cooled a bit. Also, we need to stop nominating so many current event articles for deletion while they are current. These discussions generally go seven days. Let's try follow the spirit of WP:RAPID and wait until things have slowed down before bringing these to AfD. — siro χ o 03:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Already recognized by many reliable sources as an iconic and historic photograph. Cullen328 ( talk) 03:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep The photograph has been widely covered in reliable sources and is widely recognized as historically significant. CJ-Moki ( talk) 03:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Pile on Keep Hardly any reason to contribute at this point, but yes this is a clearly major photo in it's own right, which already has many, many articles regarding it. Would recommend a speedy keep, as an AfD deletion while the page is no doubt being viewed a ton may come off as Wikipedia being a bit partisan (though I'm genuinely not sure in which direction, and do not feel at all this was the nominees intent). A MINOTAUR ( talk) 03:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, seems to have jumped into iconic status already, and is being compared to some of the great photographs in American history. Didn't notice if the photographer is named on the page but certainly should be. An interesting instant-phenomena, and meets WP:GNG. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I understand the arguments made for this page's deletion, as we don't know the influence this will have on political events and media going forward just yet, but I think this is definitely notable enough to be its own page. In particular, we've had several news sources and commentators claim that this is a uniquely significant and/or extraordinary image of a president. [1] [2] [3] Independent of its subject, this image is notable as it will remain the first mugshot taken of any American president. Outside of that, we've had similar types of topics related to Trump that one could argue should be merged with other pages, but have stayed up due to having enough notability on their own. Pac-Man PHD ( talk) 03:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, iconic, first of its kind for a current or former President of the United States, reliable sources are already publishing original and interpretive opinions on this and I fully expect (without going too WP:CRYSTALBALL) that this topic will only gain more detail, not less, over time. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak merge per NOPAGE. The information of this article can be easily placed into Georgia election racketeering prosecution. A stand-alone page is not needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep — International coverage of the image is already coming in. Historic, iconic, worthy of an independent article with analysis, reactions, and critiques. 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 04:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. First of all, Wikipedia is not a news site, and every single thing that is in the news does not have the long-lived notability that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. We already have an article about Donald Trump. We already have an article -- many articles -- about his 2020 election nonsense. Indeed, we have an article about the single exact criminal trial that this relates to. How about a compromise. We close the AfD now, I nominate it again in a year, we ping all the people who called it the most iconic photograph in history, and see if any of them remember this. Sure, it is the FIRST EVAR mugshot of a former president, but a lot of things are the first thing of another thing, and this doesn't make them significant or notable. In fact, this is the world-historic first-ever Wikipedia comment with the word "ggjlfedjdfs" in it ( go ahead, check and see). jp× g 04:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I agree with above comments that current-events articles should probably be left alone for a few days prior to the AfD oubliette, but while we're here, we might as well go through with it. jp× g 05:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Historic event, and the length of the current article is enough to justify its existence. recentlyryan RecentlyRyan
• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution Much of the history section is only tangentially related to the mug shot itself and would be better covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE. I also have doubts about the WP:SUSTAINED sustained coverage of this. Will the case have more coverage? Absolutely. Will the mug shot in particular continue to be referenced nontrivially, such that there is more to add than dramatic descriptions of the image? I would question that, and it seems a bit premature to tell. —⁠ PlanetJuice ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sustained? This image will end up as a statue at Trump's presidential library or something, if a sculptor can get the eyes right. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Now that this is back open, I should clarify my intent here. I am not trying to dispute the notability of the subject, as SUSTAINED explains; the notability is clear. I am rather commenting on organizational grounds, in the sense that more sustained coverage would provide a more diverse array of aspects to cover in the article beyond background information and a lot of repetitive commentary on the actual photo, which can be covered in the main article. For example, I think that more in the way of merchandise and the photo's wider relevance to the Internet would justify keeping, since it would not be appropriate to cram that into the prosecution article. —⁠ PlanetJuice ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep Historic mug shot, with plenty of RS coverage. Davey2116 ( talk) 04:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. A historic event, with international RS coverage. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 04:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution Why not just a search link to a new section in the racketeering article? that way people searching for info on the mugshot will find it, and we don't need another article. lemongrasscap ( talk) 04:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Though recent, the article is free of a sense of bias and provides a succinct summary of one piece in an incredibly complex puzzle. This photograph may become one of the most enduring images of Trump’s life and legacy, and deserves to stay on Wikipedia as its own article. -- BakedintheHole ( talk) 04:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Keep per above. I was actually considering drafting the article myself before discovering it. This is definitely notable, and is a major historical event. The photo is the source of speculation itself, rather than the person in it, so that works out fine too. Resources are reliable, content is still coming in, and history is being made - deleting this page now would be ludicrously premature. Respectfully, time will prove the proposals to delete or merge were utterly unwarranted. I'm lost for words at the monumental consequences that this photo will leave. I think @ BakedintheHole's summary above - "a succinct summary of one piece in an incredibly complex puzzle" is a more eloquent one than I can devise. Aubernas ( talk) 05:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Many here have said this is notable because there are a bunch of newspaper articles that mention it; I don't think this argument holds up. There are many things that have been mentioned in a bunch of newspaper articles. Should we create articles for Donald Trump's eyebrows, Donald Trump's eyes, Donald Trump's nose, Donald Trump's mouth, Donald Trump's chin, Donald Trump's neck, Donald Trump's shoulders, et cetera? These have all been mentioned in a bunch of newspaper articles many times. How many of these can we do? Must we get all the way to Donald Trump's spleen? Can we go further back? How about William McKinley's right thumb? George Washington's ankles? jp× g 05:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Ahah. Very droll of you.

  Seriously, go ahead if you want. We'll delete them straight away, of course (sorry William McKinley and your fabulous thumbs) and keep this, because this is actually an important historical event. Not just a subjectively strange-looking body part for a mere caricature on NBC's Saturday Night Live Aubernas ( talk) 05:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  This unproductive comment by JPxG should be ignored by the closer because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources of those ludicrous redlinked topics, whereas this mugshot is the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, which consistently describe it as "iconic" and "historic". Cullen328 ( talk) 06:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I get 41 news results for "Trump's ears", 27 news results for "Obama's ears", and 10 news results for "McKinley's hand"; one would hope our notability criteria take into account whether something is a genuinely independent subject, or whether it's a minute facet of something that is given extremely heavy news coverage. There are enough news sources that we could easily clear GNG for Joe Biden's activities on July 15, 2021 -- the question is "why can't this be part of Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2021 Q3)?" jp× g 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  If we take the notability criteria into account, your examples should not have articles, whereas Trump's mugshot should:

  • "Trump's ears" has 41 results because there is an article titled "Music to Trump's ears", which is not about his ears.
  • "Obama's ears" has 27 results, none of which are in-depth, mostly because phrases like "all ears". There's one article about an animal named after his ears, but this wouldn't warrant a stand-alone article.
  • "McKinley's hand" has 10 results, but none are articles about his hand.
  • "Trump's mugshot" has 362,000 results and "Mug shot of Donald Trump" 162,000. With countless in-depth articles by reliable sources.

  Hypnôs ( talk) 08:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  The thorough analysis by Hypnôs reveals how spurious the ludicrous argument by JPxG actually is. Please produce your three best sources that devote significant coverage of McKinley's hands. Or even better, drop this utterly unpersuasive argument. Cullen328 ( talk) 08:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Okay, fine: the stuff about shoulders and spleens was rhetorical flourish which I should not have made. I maintain that the President of the United States, as almost certainly the most thoroughly-documented person on the planet Earth, has substantial coverage for virtually any conceivable activity, and we need to use different criteria than its mere existence. For example, Joe Biden's activities on July 15, 2021 were documented in depth by SIGCOV from France24, PBS, Detroit Free Press, Politico, The American Legion, CNN, NBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera. jp× g 09:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  There already are several other criteria.

  Your example of "Joe Biden's activities on July 15, 2021" does not merit a stand-alone article because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Hypnôs ( talk) 09:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  WP:NOTNEWS was the first thing I linked in my delete !vote... jp× g 22:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  There is, however, George Washington's teeth. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 02:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution - The photo does not warrant it's own page as of now, but definitely it's own section on said page. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 05:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now. I'd think the mug shot of this (Redacted) will be famous for many, many years. At worse it's a merge to Donald Trump. No prejudice on revisting if we are wrong, and it's forgotten in the mists of time. Nfitz ( talk) 05:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wait a minute - the courts can refer to him as a r**ist in a written decision, but I can't? Nfitz ( talk) 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep – The photograph is important enough for a page in its own right. - Mad Mismagius ( talk) 05:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Although this is a major event in American history, the mug shot should not have its own page, unless we were to also add separate pages for the mug shots of the rest of his inner circle. Consider WP:NETRUMP, and that Wikipedia is meant to be politically neutral. If I were to create a page devoted to Joe Biden stumbling as he climbed a flight of stairs, it would be speedily deleted and possibly (not likely) redirected to a section about his health in a larger article. The documentation of this event does have some merit, but not on its own. Please merge. Hotdog with ketchup ( talk) 05:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  The shortcoming of your argument, Hotdog with ketchup, is that the depth of coverage of the Trump mugshot is vastly greater and deeper than the depth of coverage of the mugshots of other RICO indictees. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Sources already include:

• One image, one face, one American moment: The Donald Trump mug shot ( Associated Press, Aug 24, 2023, "an enduring image that will appear in history books long after Donald Trump is gone.")
• Belligerence and hostility: Trump’s mugshot defines modern US politics ( The Guardian, Aug 24, 2023)
• What to know about Trump’s mug shot ( Politico, Aug 24, 2023, "it’s already breaking the internet. [...] Trump’s photo is significant because it’s the first time a criminal mug shot has been taken of any U.S. president or former president.")
• Trump's historic mug shot released in Georgia election case ( Axios, Aug. 24, 2023, "Trump has now made history as not only the first U.S. president — sitting or former — to face criminal charges, but the first to have their mug shot taken.")
• Trump mug shot released after booking in Fulton County Jail ( The Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2023, "The prospect of a former president’s booking photo leading newscasts was unprecedented. [...] Leading up to Thursday, gamblers were placing bets on various aspects of the anticipated mug shot, from what Trump would wear to whether he would smile.")
• Trump’s mug shot is released, a first in his four criminal cases this year. ( The New York Times, Aug. 24, 2023, "Mr. Trump’s mug shot photo shows a severe expression, contrary to what we have seen from a few other defendants, some of whom have smiled.")
• Presidential mug shot of inmate No. P01135809 is stark in its simplicity ( CNN, Aug. 24, 2023, "The mug shot of Donald Trump instantly became one of the most iconic images of anyone who served as commander in chief.")
• Historic Trump mugshot released after arrest in Atlanta, Georgia ( BBC, Aug 24, 2023, "Donald Trump has surrendered in Georgia on charges of plotting to overturn the state's 2020 election results in an arrest that saw the first ever mugshot of a former US president.")
• Trump tweets mugshot in return to former Twitter platform X (The Guardian and agencies, Aug 24, 2023)

I think the WP:RAPID section of the WP:EVENT guideline supports a keep of this article for now, because there are a variety of sources, including news analysis and commentary that indicate at minimum, further time is warranted to allow this article to develop, because international reliable sources are suggesting historical significance, and the coverage is placing this event in context. Beccaynr ( talk) 06:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep – For now at least. A mug shot of a former president is notable per its rarity. Sources are good. Could be revisited in a year or two to see how this whole event ended. BabbaQ ( talk) 06:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Obviously notable given the extraordinary amount of press that this incident has recieved. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think it is an important article to have given the significance of the photo. I do, however, think that a better title may be needed as the title is a bit off to me and doesn't seem like a Wikipedia article. Pacamah ( talk) 07:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Unique event in U.S. history Art Smart ^Chart/ Heart 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Already has articles in foreign languages claiming it is a historic photo, and it has been tweeted by the subject himself as his first post-Elon tweet. Jane ( talk) 07:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep and support IAR close as a significant historical photo. Happily888 ( talk) 07:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I'm surprised that there have been several dozen comments and !votes, and yet no one has yet mentioned the most important and relevant policy that applies here: WP:BLP. Trump is a living person and, no matter how damning the evidence is, he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. It is extraordinarily rare (possibly even a first here) that a mugshot of a living person who has not yet been convicted is even in consideration for inclusion (perhaps that speaks to the gravity of the moment). I do think the argument of artistic/historic/cultural value is very compelling and agree that the sources appear good for now, but am not comfortable !voting to keep a non-convicted living person's mugshot up, especially considering it is non-free. Is keep without the picture an option? Curbon7 ( talk) 08:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Curbon7, the vast majority of mugshots are not notable photographs. This is the rare exception to the general rule. This particular photo is notable. A mugshot does not equate to guilt, and the presumption of innocence should always prevail. Some editors have already tried to add the mugshot to Donald Trump and various articles about his legal problems, and have been correctly reverted. But I believe that this image belongs in this well-referenced article about this iconic and historic photo, which is being embraced by both Trump's supporters and opponents. This is surely an example of a case where inclusion of a non-free image enhances the reader's understanding of the topic. Cullen328 ( talk) 08:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I suppose so. Consider it a reluctant keep then. Curbon7 ( talk) 08:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Various sources, including Reuters, report Trump is contributing to publicity of the image, so WP:BLP concerns for this WP:PUBLICFIGURE, including in WP:MUG, seem addressed by the particular context that can be developed from available sources, e.g. "Trump wasted little time using the mug shot for fundraising purposes, posting it on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, as well as on his own social media platform, Truth Social." ( August 25, 2023). Beccaynr ( talk) 08:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A historic photograph, irrespective of what happens with his case. Much news coverage of that fact. 331dot ( talk) 08:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. As noted above, its historical significance is massive and it has already received immense media attention. 172.58.111.202 ( talk) 08:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Not only is the topic notable, but the article is well-written with a lot of interesting commentary on the photo itself, not just on the context for it. Deserves to be a separate article, one that will clearly be widely read. NightHeron ( talk) 08:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete the article, FWIW — seems pretty clear where this discussion is going. (Some of the editors posting here seem to be arguing against the deletion of the image file which is not under discussion here.) The photo is historic insofar as this isn't Trump's first arrest and release but it's the first time he was processed, including mug shot, and released after posting bail like other defendants. I.e., it's the first time he didn't get special treatment because he is a former president. We used to have an article on Donald Trump's hair which now redirects to Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture#Hair — eventually editors realized that there is not that much to say about the subject. The mug shot is on Georgia election racketeering prosecution and on Donald_Trump with the fact worth mentioning about it, that it's the first time a former president had a booking photo taken. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Trump's hair is not particularly historic, this image is, which is why there is much coverage about the image itself. 331dot ( talk) 09:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Most comments in this discussion just look like they're saying the same thing. If the entire argument is simply "it's historic" then this article isn't going to last very long. There are many things about Trump that have made history that are just as easily mentioned in a section on his own article. He's hardly the first world leader to have had a mugshot too so I'd argue there's some clear Americentric viewpoints here. 148.252.132.248 ( talk) 10:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Do IPs vote? 2804:388:A022:4B24:0:4A:E310:DA01 ( talk) 11:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  this isn't a vote... Rkieferbaum ( talk) 11:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  It’d be more honest had they used their main account. 2804:388:A022:4B24:0:4A:E310:DA01 ( talk) 12:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I don't have an account. I've never needed to make one. You're not on an account either so I'm not sure why you're criticising me for that. 148.252.132.248 ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep the photo itself is receiving international attention and is already a historical photograph. I wouldn't mind a merge but there's already too much information about the photo and it's likely to expand further, so a merge with the article about the case would bring undue weight to the photo which is, by any means, very marginal to the case. So a keep is the best way to keep things tidy and clear. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 11:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect/merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this has got significant coverage in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. For that it needs to have longterm significance, and even then it may be better to cover it in the article on the prosecution. The image was only taken yesterday and claims the image has enormous historic significance are premature. This is a very high profile news story and even small parts of it are likely to have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a news organisation and doesn't write articles on things just because they are in the news. Hut 8.5 11:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep firstly per WP:RAPID. This page was nominated for deletion only one hour after it was created; if a page isn't eligible for speedy deletion, then that is obviously too quick to either delete it or decry it a content fork as the nom rationale did. Beyond WP:RAPID, this probably deserves to be kept long-term as well as the photograph is likely notable on its own merits (using the weasel words like "probably" and "likely" deliberately because it's just not possible to know how notable something will be in the distant future, certainly not after less than one day, hence what WP:RAPID is for). It's not only notable for being a first for America, it's being covered around the world. It also helps that it's not just being described, but analyzed. But again, any claim one way or the other on notability is premature. We shouldn't be having this discussion today. Don't rush to deletion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: historically significant in the U.S. in and of itself – shouldn't be mashed into a larger article. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 12:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: my support for keep is weak-to-moderate.

I can understand the side of delete: The most important aspects about the mugshot certainly can be summarized quickly elsewhere. And not all “firsts” related to Trump-related norm-breaking need articles. If one thinks the more detailed analysis of the photo is not necessary to preserve on Wiki and that the only notable content about it is is its existence, than it definitely would appear that this would only need a short mention in other articles rather than a spun-off article.

However, the side of keep seems stronger. This is widely discussed with analysis occurring. So there is a strong chance there’ll be lasting notability. At the moment, it indeed seems on track for lasting independent notability that lies somewhere above the threshold on notability for the project. There appears enough content and independent analysis (with more coming) than can be successfully merged: the ultimate question on whether something needs an independent article or should merely be mentioned within another.

I would not have taken the initiative to spin-off this subject. But I guess that doesn’t mean it needs deletion at this moment. SecretName101 ( talk) 13:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect to Georgia election racketeering prosecution per WP:NOTNEWS. A mug shot photo even as large as it is being covered is not indicative of notability for its own article. Grahaml35 ( talk) 14:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• WP:SNOW keep - why are we even talking about a article on a subject of great public interest with a vast number of reliable sources talking about how significant (and thus notable) the thing is, only 8(?) hours after the article was created? It's a weak article at this point, and the long term significance of the article and the events it describes are unclear. Instead of litigating this thing to death, better to let things take their course, see how the article develops, and *then* consider whether to merge or rewrite the article. Wikipedia has no deadline, as they say. - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  A snowball keep only works if everyone's on board to keep. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 20:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  That would be a speedy keep; a SNOWBALL closure here would just be an acknowledgement that even with some views expressed otherwise, the clearly overwhelming direction of this discussion is only going to produce one result. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Come on, this mugshot already has multiple pages of news articles dedicated to it and only it. Some of them don't bring up Georgia or the crimes that led to the mugshot at all, this photograph is historically relevant outside the causes that led to its creation and more than standing up for itself as a notable picture worth its own dedicated page. -- Aabicus ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin - this discussion was closed for approximately 7 hours on 25 August 2023. I advise allowing an additional 7 hours after the usual 7 days is up to allow for this. Waggers TALK 20:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It's already covered in the uk guardian and the title subject of a newsagents podcast. The subject is clearly notable and we need time to see if it's a notnews case or an enduringly separately notable subject. Keep for now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now. Fairly likely to stick around, like covfefe, Bowling Green massacre and such alternative facts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Strong and obvious keep --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep Mistakenly, I said my arguement on the articles Talk page but I'll copy-paste it here.

I believe its WP:Notable because he's the first president/former president in atleast 150 years to be arrested, although the mugshot having its own article is kinda Wikipedia:Silly Things it should maybe be renamed to "Prosecution of Donald Trump" or something like that, and have the whole page be about his arrest and the timeline and the events that occurred so people know what happened, sort of like Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant or, we could keep this article up, as the image is getting a lot of notoriety and fame, and there are a lot of Wikipedia pages about popular images or memes. sexy ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - More sources include:

• From mugshot to mugs and memes: Trump picture fuels internet frenzy (Guardian, Aug. 25, 2023, "the highly anticipated mugshot of the former president spread swiftly across the internet as both ends of the political spectrum raced to commodify and meme-ify the picture.")
• Defiant Trump seeks to gain advantage by using mugshot in fundraising push (Guardian, Aug. 25, 2023, "The image flashed up on screens across the nation and ran on the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and newspapers around the world.")
• Trump’s Mug Shot: ‘Not Comfortable’ but Potentially Lucrative (NYT, Aug. 25, 2023, "“It is not a comfortable feeling — especially when you’ve done nothing wrong,” he told Fox News’s website in an interview afterward.")
• A Trump Mug Shot for History (NYT, Aug. 25, 2023, "As soon as it was taken, it became the de facto picture of the year.")
• Trump’s mug shot is perfectly on brand (Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2023, "Trump’s arrest photo now joins a dubious lineage that connects the likes of Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Manson to Hugh Grant, Lindsay Lohan, Luann de Lesseps and O.J. Simpson.")
• The mug shot seen round the world: Donald Trump’s forever photo (Washington Post, Aug 25, 2023, "Will the image be weaponized by Trump supporters and detractors? Undoubtedly. Will it become ubiquitous? Unquestionably.")
• Shower curtains, mugs & more: Trump mug shot merchandise now online (ABC News, Aug. 25, 2023, "The historic image gave rise almost immediately not only to products offered by Trump's presidential campaign, but it also fueled a robust online marketplace, as sellers offered scores of products on online platforms like Etsy and CafePress.")
• Trump campaign promotes mug shot shirts, mugs, more merchandise that read "Never Surrender" (CBS News, Aug. 25, 2023)

Beccaynr ( talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS Already included in Donald Trump and Georgia election racketeering prosecution and may be appropriate elsewhere. Create redirect to existing article. soibangla ( talk) 21:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: A historic photograph ImStevan ( talk) 21:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Wait: It's rare that we deal with something novel like a US president getting a mug shot. There will inevitably be substantial coverage of this news item for at least another week, but it's possible that the mug shot will become folded in with Trump-related legal battles and controversies more generally. Because we can't predict the future, I say we hold on to the article for now and come back to the matter in a month or so. For what it's worth, I think this will stand the test of time and will clear the WP:NOTNEWS hurdle—but that's a prediction of little value. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Adding that perhaps a good proximate and recent precedent for this type of thing might be Dark Brandon redirect to Let's Go Brandon. Memetic images often subordinate to broader topics, but there's a lot more to this one. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep This photo is so historical that it might end up in books someday, telling a part of the story of our times. Even though the mugshot in and of itself might not be enough for its own article, the situation it's part of and the big effect it has on society make it important enough to keep this page. In twenty years, someone could see this photo and want to know how things got to this point. This page will be a helpful resource for people looking for background information and context. NicolaM28 21:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Historic free photo, thank you for obtaining it. I trust Wikipedia to archive it, so I don't have to file a Letter of Affirmation with Fulton County. - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - A historical photo given his role as US President, and easily passes WP:GNG; reliable sources that are secondary, independent of the article subject, and that provide primary coverage over this exact article subject (the photo itself) are everywhere and easily found. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep - The article is not about Trump or his prosecution; it is about the photo. It is an historical artefact of unprecedented notability. Merge and Redir !votes do not appear to be considering that critical fact. This is far more like Hindenburg disaster newsreel footage than it is like any other mug shot in history. IMO, the nomination is also WP:RUSH. I do understand that this is about WP:NOPAGE, but I feel that it clears each of the three questions without a backwards glance. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 21:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The image is notable on its own, as demonstrated by the sheer number of independent sources that specifically regard this specific image. I am not opposed to using summary style to describe the image in other articles, but there is enough coverage and information available for a standalone article. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comment. Even images like Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten have articles, so why shouldn't an image of this significance have one? – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 22:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Historic image that is a widespread media event at this moment. Rexxx7777 ( talk) 21:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. This should be titled "Booking photo..." not "Mug shot...". - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

See WP:COMMONNAME — siro χ o 22:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The world over, everyone knows what a mug shot is. Booking photo I think is more local; sounds like an artists headshot that the agencies give out when booking for movies and TV shows. Mug shot is in the dictionary. Booking photo isn't. Nfitz ( talk) 22:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - probably not notable enough yet. Wait until the media swarm dies down, and then try again. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That's a keep for now argument - not a delete argument. Nfitz ( talk) 22:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

No, it's not. When you have an article that does not definitely meet the general notability guideline, it should be deleted. If this photo gets sustained, long-term coverage, then fine. But, right now, it hasn't; everything Donald Trump has, does, is, will do or is doing will generate a media storm. As for now, delete or merge into the Georgia racketeering article. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - First ever mugshot of a US president. Very historic. Chicken4War ( talk) 22:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: Forbes made an article on the debate itself. All I can say is "uh oh". LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 22:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

oh dear... – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 22:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Read the article, which links people to this page. We are way past "oh dear". I would suggest that anyone planning the join this discussion read the Forbes article first. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 22:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That's a CONTRIBUTOR article, which doesn't mean much. In fact, its a source that's usually unusable on Wiki Graywalls ( talk) 22:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Even then, it's worrying, because it means even more canvassing than there already is. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 22:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sort of expected given it's something of great interest of the current minute sensationalism. Give it a month or two and things will settle down. Graywalls ( talk) 22:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone is suggesting writing an encyclopedia article about this discussion. But, Forbes Contributor posts often get a lot of views. People will be visiting this discussion based on that post. — siro χ o 22:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I didn't mean to imply that it was reliable, but it does give you a glimpse into how notable the photo itself is, if even this very debate is appearing in the media. From a GNG perspective... Well, I'll turn to the Dictionary of Irony: "re•cur•sive (adjective). See recursive." Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 22:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

...and just like that we're that much closer to having an article called Deletion discussion about the Mug shot of Donald Trump article... :D Rkieferbaum ( talk) 23:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - This capturing of this image is an iconic moment in American politics and internet meme culture. There is no debate around its notoriety and there should be no debate around its validity as an article. I'm sure this mug shot will generate plenty of social commentary, both about Trump's antics and topics adjacent to that. Keep! Eolais| Talk| Contribs 23:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - This is a historic moment in US politics and is worth an article in its own right. If it is merged with the Georgia Election Meddling page, it will likely not be indexed as easily by search engines and be more difficult to find. NSEasternShoreChemist, M.Sc. ^{Questions/Comments?} 23:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge anything that needs to be said about this picture can be said at the racketeering article. No need for a separate article here. Also, arguments on the basis that this photo is iconic/historical seem a little bit crystal ballish IMO. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 23:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Historic photo; I mean, it's the first mugshot of a President in United States history. Vast news coverage. But, I do agree with some of the above that it is a bit silly having an entire article dedicated to a mugshot. Would personally go with IPhoneRoots' idea. Iamstillqw3rty ( talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to literally anything. NOTNEWS, will quickly be eclipsed by the trial page. Worth pointing out the bit account Depth of Wikipedia has posted about this article on Twitter which has received 20 thousand likes so far.^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  L3X1, why should Wikipedia editors pay any attention at all to what random people on formerly known as Twitter/now X say about anything? It's all 99% foolishness over there. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep Strong Keep. This is a historic photo that deserves discussion on its own. It would be immature to delete this article so soon. It can be improved; it's already being improved. But we should keep it, it's a part of history unfolding. District9123 ( talk) 00:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, clearly notable in its own right already. In addition, I don't think it runs afoul of CRYSTAL to note the practicality of keeping it as it will clearly get more discussion as it is used in political campaigning. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is arguably one of the most important photographs of all time, with someone who was once described as the "most powerful man in the world" being in a mug shot. Merging this with the Georgia case makes as much sense as merging Migrant Mother, which has a well-established Wikipedia page, with the "Great Depression." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin03 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment Something I've noticed while reading through these arguments is that many that point out the mug shot's significance could just as easily be used for other mug shot images. Mug shots of O. J. Simpson, David Bowie, Nelson Mandela, and even Joseph Stalin, to name a few, have all had similar significance, be it in pop culture or propaganda. In particular, Simpson's mug shot is arguably the most recognisable image of him, and has been used on merchandise as well as being subject to a controversy involving TIME magazine darkening the image. ^[1] As this article is the first to be focused on a specific mug shot, I feel this is something to keep in mind for the future. There will be precedent from this. In Trump's case, it's still very early and we cannot be sure of its lasting impact, especially when there could be more mug shots of him to come, but it is certainly notable nonetheless simply because of its subject. 195.213.106.122 ( talk) 00:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Reply If you truly believe that any of those other mug shots have received comparable levels of significant coverage as photographs in multiple, reliable sources, then please feel free to draft articles about those mug shots. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep for above reasons. It goes down as the most famous mug shot of all time. 85sl ( talk) 02:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep a highly appropriate article as the mug shot has already received significant coverage in its own right as a historic picture as the first and only mug shot of a US President. This is an appropriate WP:SPINOFF article as the article for the legal case is certain to become significantly longer in the coming months/years. Carson Wentz ( talk) 00:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. The mugshot is a piece of history, certainly more so than the Barack Obama tan suit controversy or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Lincoln's ghost or Bushism. There are myriad articles about the mugshot, its creation and its interpretation. Even if there is another mugshot down the line, people will probably be talking about this photo for decades to come. Aresef ( talk) 01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

KEEP - It's historic in nature and we have stub/smaller articles about things such as individual Presidential pets! conman33 ( . . .talk) 01:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This article is about the first mug shot taken of a former President of the United States, AND it has taken on a life of its own in the public consciousness. There is no good reason to delete or merge. Keep is the obvious, only conclusion. RobotGoggles ( talk) 01:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - at least for now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠ Talk║ Contribs╣} 01:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This is a mug shot of one of the most powerful people in the world, a never seen before occurrence in the History of the United States of America It has indeed already become extremely iconic enough to warrant its own article, with people on social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Youtube turning this into a meme and even Trump supporters themselves have used it as a rallying cry. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 01:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Not !voting because I found this through depths of wikipedia, but my general opinion would be to give this a while and see where it stands in a couple months. It's hard to gauge how well this will hold up over time. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep or rename to (arrests of former US presidents) with more content - The article is notable in content and context as its own due to it being historic in nature that it is the first time a former president had their mugshot taken. As for another reason, the effects the photograph has had on the American conservative base has yet to be seen for any effects (adverse high turn out for Trump or low turnout for Trump). The effects on the Democrat base however has already been documented.

As for the rename rational, there was a time that another president was arrested multiple times, President Grant was arrested for speeding and subsequently released. However, a mugshot was not taken of him as cameras did not exist, but a painting depicting him of speeding was created by the press at that time. He was also arrested two more times as well. There is even an article for this. Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold ( talk) 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This is a very historic photo and will most likely be posted in history books. This is a first - a former president being arrested. ImYourTurboLover ( talk) 02:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It can be revisited a few months from now to see whether interest holds up but for now this is a historical event, the only ever mug shot of a US President and it has been widely reported across all kinds of international media. BochiBochiGalaxy ( talk) 02:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Alternative option rename to (arrests of former presidents) and merge Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant into that article

Both Trump and Grant have been arrested multiple times, thus I think it would be wise to merge those two topics into its own article called Arrests of Former Presidents. A mugshot being taken is procedure of an arrest, thus there could be a mugshot image and related stuff from this mugshot page placed into that new article. As for Grant, a painting of him speeding was created on a lithograph. The arrests section in the indictment articles are small. Thus if placed into one article with a merge of the Grant article it would have enough content to be considered a valid article. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold ( talk) 02:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Seriously? Speeding vs. trying to undermine democracy in the same article? Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Trump was arrested on four occasions and the article you're referring to is about the arrests of Grant more generally and not the image depicting him speeding. Covering all of that in a general "arrests of United States presidents" article wouldn't make any sense.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:33, 26 August 2023 (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.