Talk:Donald Trump document deletion controversy

Untitled section
& wouldn't you like to help here? My English is not the best/fastest. --SI 17:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will later if I can find the time.- MrX 17:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Move
The article doesn't state any sort of controversy; it seems they paralleled the title to match that of Clinton's, which is not a good decision. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 13:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right. This article is stupid political propaganda. It should be edited or deleted. Wikipedia is not the right place for this stuff.DerElektriker (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could someone point out what the controversy is? Specifically which items in the article are deemed to have been controversial? It seems like someone should merge this with Legal affairs of Donald Trump. There doesn't seem to be any value for this to be a standalone article. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sniffs like a Red herring mudball thrown out in the last week before voting ... Doesn't seem to have gotten enough WP:WEIGHT of coverage to be worth an article, and seems to be talking 1970s and then alledged item in the 2000s. Meh, it's that kind of an election.  Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion/move of page
I think this page should be deleted or moved into another article. It's small, doesn't really cover much, and it's not a major controversy compared to Hillary Clinton's email scandal. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC))


 * TheJoebro64 - If you want to nominate it for deletion, here's where: WP:Deletion process.

Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This info cites multiple sources deemed sufficiently reputable to serve as references in other Wikipedia articles, and it addresses legal matters. Therefire, it should be moved to the article addressing Trump's legal affairs. - Froide, 3 Nov. 2016 Froid (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted sources
The topic is well sourced and has broad media coverage despite the short time, but the sources that I initially posted to be converted into text+refs have nearly all been deleted (seemingly in oder to have better arguments for deleting the article). Thus I made an even longer collection of sources here. --SI 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC on better lemma title
As some contributors suggested, this article could be moved to a better lemma title, so I would like to get more opinions which words would hit the core of the issues best. Please have a look at the media coverage and add your suggestions to the list below and your comments to the section below. Thank you! --SI 10:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestions list
 * Donald Trump evidence destruction cases
 * Donald Trump companies document deletion scandal
 * Trump & companies deleting evidences
 * Donald Trump and companies destroying mails and papers controversies


 * Comments


 * Propose Donald Trump document deletion controversy. This is wider than just emails and appears to include other types of documents (not necessarily all electronic, either).  It's not "evidence", per se, as all of the material may not have been subject to legal discovery or proceedings at the time of deletion. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Should this article be kept, I would second 's suggestion. It sounds most accurate and the least WP:POV. Parsley Man (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 good words, thank you, ! --SI 05:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy?

 * So what exactly is the controversy? I see a lot of news articles. What's the encyclopedic purpose? How is it different than WP:NOTNEWS? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you really read the sources? It's hard to understand how someone could regard all those Trump's actions as uncontroversial. --SI 04:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More like a scandal. A controversy works with two sides, preferably disagreeing about something. I haven't read all the sources, but there's not much (if anything) indicating conflict in this article. Calling the main section "Development" makes it sound like a news story, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Factual Error
This article states that Donald Trump and his company have been deleting emails on a large scale, "including evidence in lawsuits, sometimes in defiance of court orders and under subpoena since as early as 1973." The re are two cited sources for this information. Neither of these two sources even use the word "subpoena". Further, through this information, I was led to believe that Trump, in the actions described in this article, violated the law, by deleting emails the court had requested. In actuality, according to the sources, Trump was asked to put forward some emails. Trump revealed that he, in order to save space, had deleted these emails. The defendants accused him of obstruction of justice. The judge, however, never ruled that he was guilty, and the case was settled outside of court. The text of this article clearly suggests that Donald Trump destroyed evidence while under court order, something which cited sources prove never happen. I believe the text to be misleading, if not complete fictitious; and rather biased against Donald Trump in its misleading nature; it makes it seem as though Trump obstructed justice. In truth, however, such a charge was never proven. Therefore, I propose that this text be deleted. It is misleading, and unnecessary to the article. Wikier1010 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question, it was already in the Newsweek citation in the next section, but I added 2 more now. --SI 05:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I'm simply very confused.... I see the information in the cited articles, but I believe it was also contradicted in other cited articles. That information suggests that Donald Trump deleted emails in violation of court orders, when other articles seem to suggest that courts asked for emails, and he said they had been deleted when deleting them was still legal. Wikier1010 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)