Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Veracity of statements by Donald Trump: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:55, 12 March 2019 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,275 edits frivolous AfD and gross incompetence← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:01, 12 March 2019 edit undoWumbolo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,936 edits →Veracity of statements by Donald Trump: Closed as keep (XFDcloser) 
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. ]. I'd say that the previous close was partially justified by ]. <small>]</small> <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 21:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
⚫ ===]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Veracity of statements by Donald Trump}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Veracity of statements by Donald Trump}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 12: Line 17:
*'''Keep''': meets GNG by a mile. Naming discussion can be had on the article's Talk page. --] (]) 06:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC) *'''Keep''': meets GNG by a mile. Naming discussion can be had on the article's Talk page. --] (]) 06:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
::That's a straw man arguement. I never raised a notability issue, it's an attack page.--] (]) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ::That's a straw man arguement. I never raised a notability issue, it's an attack page.--] (]) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::No, it is not. This is a page about a notable topic which might reflect negatively upon its subject but does not ''serve no purpose but to'' do so. Donald Trump has cultivated a political style of using misinformation excessively to the point that reliable sources have focused on the uniqueness of this approach. Having an article describing this style of politics is not an attack on the person any more than for example ] is an attack page against Sen. McCarthy. Regards ]] 19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. The (lack of) veracity of statements by Donald Trump is a notable topic in itself with many reliable sources noting that the amount of untruthful statements are unparalleled. If reliable sources treat the very fact that a president habitually makes false statements as a notable topic itself (and not just as something all politicians do), similar articles can be created for these presidents. If the problem is the name, it can be discussed on the talk page. But if your only argument is ], it's a weak one. After all, just because something is unique does not mean it's not a notable topic. Regards ]] 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. The (lack of) veracity of statements by Donald Trump is a notable topic in itself with many reliable sources noting that the amount of untruthful statements are unparalleled. If reliable sources treat the very fact that a president habitually makes false statements as a notable topic itself (and not just as something all politicians do), similar articles can be created for these presidents. If the problem is the name, it can be discussed on the talk page. But if your only argument is ], it's a weak one. After all, just because something is unique does not mean it's not a notable topic. Regards ]] 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' This ought to be a snow keep, but we'll see. -] ] 08:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC) * '''Keep''' This ought to be a snow keep, but we'll see. -] ] 08:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Line 20: Line 26:
*'''Admin note:''' I have reverted an inappropriate non-admin "speedy keep" closure by an involved editor, per ]. This does not prevent an admin from re-closing this discussion as "speedy keep" if they believe this is warranted; I take no position on this issue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC) *'''Admin note:''' I have reverted an inappropriate non-admin "speedy keep" closure by an involved editor, per ]. This does not prevent an admin from re-closing this discussion as "speedy keep" if they believe this is warranted; I take no position on this issue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Sadly, describing reality an attack page does not make. ] (]) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Sadly, describing reality an attack page does not make. ] (]) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. LOL! I hate to mention the editor, and not just the content, but we're looking at a case of severe ] on display, or just plain POV deletionism. This is a frivolous AfD. We document what RS say here, and since they document (not just "allege) "that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history" (Rusf10), we are supposed to document what they say. If Rusf10 doesn't get that, they should be topic banned from American politics, because they consistently take the side opposite RS on all things Trump. That's disruptive and incompetent. Check their history and you'll see. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. <s>LOL! I hate to mention the editor, and not just the content, but we're looking at a case of severe ] on display, or just plain POV deletionism.</s> This is a frivolous AfD. We document what RS say here, and since they document (not just "allege) "that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history" (Rusf10), we are supposed to document what they say. <s>If Rusf10 doesn't get that, they should be topic banned from American politics, because they consistently take the side opposite RS on all things Trump. That's disruptive and incompetent. Check their history and you'll see.</s> -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:* Refactored to reduce the heat. The personal mention wasn't really necessary here. Sorry about that. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 19:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - there is no denying the allegations, a portion of which may well be on target. I'm of the mind there may be some ambiguity in what opinion determines to be a lie vs exaggeration vs his repeating misinformation, but that's a job for editors at the article to work out by following BLP, NOR, NPOV and V. <sup>]</sup> <big>] ]</big> 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Plainly a notable topic with ample available references. It might not always be clear whether a particular untruth is a deliberate lie, a falsehood stated in ignorance, etc., but that's a matter where we summarize the reliable sources through normal day-to-day editing. ] (]) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Snow keep.''' is the discussion that the article was spawned from. Do you see any evidence that the page was created to attack anyone or for any other inappropriate reason? Neither do I. ] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*:Which also means the ] part of ATTACK would apply anyway. Thanks for the link. Regards ]] 19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Exactly. ] <small>(])</small> 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This is a legitimate topic that has been covered by numerous ]. There's no reason to delete it. This seems like an ] nomination. ] (]) 20:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 21:01, 12 March 2019

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. WP:SNOW. I'd say that the previous close was partially justified by WP:NOTBURO. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (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)

This is an WP:ATTACK page. An attack page is "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" No comparable page exists not only for any other president, but any other person in history. The page implies that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history and contains exclusively negative information about him. Rusf10 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a straw man arguement. I never raised a notability issue, it's an attack page.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not. This is a page about a notable topic which might reflect negatively upon its subject but does not serve no purpose but to do so. Donald Trump has cultivated a political style of using misinformation excessively to the point that reliable sources have focused on the uniqueness of this approach. Having an article describing this style of politics is not an attack on the person any more than for example McCarthyism is an attack page against Sen. McCarthy. Regards SoWhy 19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The (lack of) veracity of statements by Donald Trump is a notable topic in itself with many reliable sources noting that the amount of untruthful statements are unparalleled. If reliable sources treat the very fact that a president habitually makes false statements as a notable topic itself (and not just as something all politicians do), similar articles can be created for these presidents. If the problem is the name, it can be discussed on the talk page. But if your only argument is no other such page exists, it's a weak one. After all, just because something is unique does not mean it's not a notable topic. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This ought to be a snow keep, but we'll see. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Trump's habitual lying is extensively covered in sources around the world. More than 9,000 have been document just during his presidency. The article is not an attack page. The reason "no comparable page exists not only for any other president" is that no other president has lied so often and so clumsily. - MrX 🖋 10:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This seems an awful lot like a WP:POVFORK. For example, Tony Schwartz is a journalist who ghostwrote Trump: The Art of the Deal. In July 2016, Schwartz was interviewed by Jane Mayer for two articles in The New Yorker. In them he described Trump, who was running for president at the time, highly unfavorably, and described how he came to regret writing The Art of the Deal. Is it really necessary to tell us how Shwartz feels about Trump? This quote is half the section labeled In The Art of the Deal. If the results are to be keep, I highly suggest we place some sort of cleanup tag on it. It's sourced, yes, but the tone needs work. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 11:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mayer, Jane (July 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  2. Barrett, Wayne. The Greatest Show on Earth (First Regan Arts. paperback edition, August 2016 ed.). New York, N.Y.: Regan Arts. p. 33. ISBN 978-1682450-79-6. (Republication of Trump: The Deals and the Downfall (Harper Collins, 1992, ISBN 0-06-016704-1))
  3. ^ Mayer, Jane (July 20, 2016). "Donald Trump Threatens the Ghostwriter of "The Art of the Deal"". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  4. "'Art Of The Deal' Ghostwriter On Why Trump Should Not Be President". NPR. July 21, 2016. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
  • Keep. Drowning in WP:GNG refs. Perfect topic to showcase how WP:PAG produces encyclopedic content in contested areas. Any issues regarding content (e.g. POV), can be solved within the article/talk page. Britishfinance (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Admin note: I have reverted an inappropriate non-admin "speedy keep" closure by an involved editor, per Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 12. This does not prevent an admin from re-closing this discussion as "speedy keep" if they believe this is warranted; I take no position on this issue. Sandstein 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Sadly, describing reality an attack page does not make. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. LOL! I hate to mention the editor, and not just the content, but we're looking at a case of severe incompetence on display, or just plain POV deletionism. This is a frivolous AfD. We document what RS say here, and since they document (not just "allege) "that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history" (Rusf10), we are supposed to document what they say. If Rusf10 doesn't get that, they should be topic banned from American politics, because they consistently take the side opposite RS on all things Trump. That's disruptive and incompetent. Check their history and you'll see. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is no denying the allegations, a portion of which may well be on target. I'm of the mind there may be some ambiguity in what opinion determines to be a lie vs exaggeration vs his repeating misinformation, but that's a job for editors at the article to work out by following BLP, NOR, NPOV and V. 📣 📧 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Plainly a notable topic with ample available references. It might not always be clear whether a particular untruth is a deliberate lie, a falsehood stated in ignorance, etc., but that's a matter where we summarize the reliable sources through normal day-to-day editing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow keep. Here is the discussion that the article was spawned from. Do you see any evidence that the page was created to attack anyone or for any other inappropriate reason? Neither do I. R2 (bleep) 19:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    Which also means the WP:NEGATIVESPIN part of ATTACK would apply anyway. Thanks for the link. Regards SoWhy 19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. R2 (bleep) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
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.