Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Never Trump" movement


 * 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 delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the WP:NOTNEWS issue, that is: is this a topic of lasting importance or just another of the day's news items? - If there is more lasting and substantial coverage in reliable sources, the issue can be revisited, but until then the topic can be covered in the appropriate election and campaign articles, to the extent editorial consensus deems necessary.  Sandstein  08:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Never Trump" movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD. A full discussion is probably a good idea. "Never Trump" is a Twitter hashtag, and while it has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it should have a page. There isn't an actual "movement", just some political insiders, like Mitt Romney, coming out against Trump. The articles that do discuss it (for example) suggest that it's unworkable. At least People United Means Action was a registered PAC. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. As I mentioned when I endorsed the PROD, even if it is an organized movement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia until it gains significantly more publicity, and, more to the point, significantly more coverage in secondary sources that aren't just Twitter. --Gimubrc (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sorry, I don't see any policy that says this article should be deleted. It has so much coverage          . What do you mean,  and, about there not being enough publicity? I think we have more than enough coverage. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it doesn't have enough publicity. I said it's not a notable topic, despite the coverage it has received. Sources don't guarantee WP:GNG. This is not a real movement. It, to me, does not appear to be likely to have lasting notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. It's too early to determine if "Never Trump" will be notable enough in the long run to meet WP:GNG or WP:NOTNEWS. I suggest merging with either United States presidential election, 2016, one of it's offshoots, or Donald Trump. If it does end up becoming a major news topic, we can always recreate the page later in the future, when things become clearer. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Its a two-line dead-end article whose only link is from a two-line section of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, and that section (ideally expanded) is where the matter belongs for the moment (WP:NOPAGE -- the same logic would apply to "Bernie or Bust"). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even if there were to be a separate article, it should be something along the lines of "Republican opposition to Trump 2016", which could adequately cover things more broadly/contextually than just the "Never Trump" "movement", which is neither the beginning nor (ignoring fellow candidates' opposition) the entirety of the current middle. #NeverTrump appears to have had little impact on recent primaries. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  08:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Callinus (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: evolving issue yet very important talked about topic. --Midrashah (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP: The "Never Trump" movement has been a big issue in the news lately, so the topic is notable enough to warrant retention of the article. However, the article desperately needs to be expanded and improved. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Donald Trump Donald Trump presidential campaign, per WP:TOOSOON, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. It's real enough , although it's moment may have come and already gone   It can be reconsidered during the Sanders administration - or whoever.  And possibly/probably merged to the article on the Trump campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Keep for now" doesn't make sense. Nobody's said it isn't "real", we're debating notability, which is not temporary. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Phrase is routinely used to argue, as I have here, that this is presently notable enough to Keep, although since ongoing impact cannot be assessed until some time has passed, at which point a reassessment may be warranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you are describing is WP:RECENTISM, ("Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.") and it is not justification for keeping an article. as i said before, this topic is better served as a small section in the Donald Trump article or perhaps even better in the Donald Trump presidential campaign article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and suggesting this topic will have any kind of long reaching impact even in a few months is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Perhaps it will be shown to have long lived notability, at which time it can be expanded into a full article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, and its apparent reliance on a single source, which does not look good on its own already. Parsley Man (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Parsley, AFD is about whether sources to support notability exist, not whether they are already on the page. Please see sources I linked to above, plus:,  ,  and more: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're listening to what is saying about WP:RECENTISM... Parsley Man (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note That Nom's assertion that this is a hashtag is a misapprehension. It is a political movement supported by Rubio, Cruz and Kasich, and by major Republican pundits and donors, and by many Democrats as well.  Opinions on notability may vary, but should not be based on erroneous characterization.  I urge User:Muboshgu to correct this erroneous description.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure that this assertion holds water. | At least half the hits on google are for the hashtag, and that is definitely where it started. I think the Nom's description is accurate enough.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Google hits? What say focus on reliable sources, more likely to be found on google news search: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich have all pledged to support the Republican nominee, no matter who it is. Despite some hedging, and some Rubio merchandise (they claim they're only "Never Trump" for the primaries), they've held to that, so I stand by my characterization 100%. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some copy form today's news. This article just needs expand, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2016 (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.