Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1776 Commission


 * 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 no consensus. People disagree about whether to delete because this doesn't exist (yet), or keep because it has nonetheless been covered in sources.  Sandstein  20:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

1776 Commission

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a non-existent entity. Yes, Trump said on September 17 that he would "soon" create a 1776 Commission. Trump says many things that come to nothing. Surely it's not time for an article about "the" 1776 Commission until a 1776 Commission actually exists? Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep for now or alternatively Merge to Political positions of Donald Trump - That something exists or does not exist is not a rationale for keeping or deleting. As an example, WWIII is clearly a notable subject even though it has not happened and may never happen. There's no question that this event has received WP:SIGCOV the only real question is whether it's going to be WP:LASTING. Like it says in the guidelines for whether something is or is not a pass for lasting coverage: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable", so the real question is whether this is likely to have lasting impact or not. Well, this is really hard to know at present but it seems very possible since this is a policy announced by the President of the United States and so is likely to have substantial impact. Even policies that Trump has announced and then never actually followed through on live a kind of half-life for years afterwards in reliable sources (e.g., The Wall). I'm therefore leaning to keep for now and revisit this in a few months when the "weeks or months" period in the guidelines has expired, but if we don't keep then per WP:PRESERVE just merge it into a section on Trump's education policy (which should probably have its own article at this point anyway). I could also see opening a new article on the concept of patriotic education as it is a general phenomenon globally (particularly in China) and merging to there, but this article doesn't exist yet. FOARP (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FOARP, WWIII is a real risk, something that many of us worry about, and that some of us think is already amongst us (because there are many different definitions). By contrast, the 1776 Commission seems to be vaporware. I don't understand how you make it out to be "a policy". Is everything that comes out of Trump's mouth thereby a policy, really? I'm reading the definition of policy in our article, and I don't see it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Bishonen - The Trump administration is sclerotic enough that there is no clear dividing line between his brain-farts and actual policy, so it's quite possible this ends up being acted on - and even if it doesn't it's also quite possible that this concept becomes a topic of academic or political discussion. For now it's received WP:SIGCOV as its been discussed (and is still being discussed widely), it's clearly verifiable, the only question is whether the coverage is going to be lasting - and we really can't know that at this point but we do have guidelines saying that this can take "weeks or months" to assess, so I'm saying that we leave it up in the meantime. And if it doesn't then the appropriate solution is to merge to Political positions of Donald Trump as it is clearly a "political position of Donald Trump", not delete it. FOARP (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why is this considered for deletion? It is factual. You can't ignore fact. Censorship is not the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.195.56 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for now - there was an announcement that an Executive Order would be signed, but as yet nothing has been issued . Coverage consists of arguments about what it might or might not be. I think it's WP:TOOSOON.  LizardJr8 (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Coverage of any potential future event (e.g., WWIII) will necessarily consist of speculation until it happens. This doesn't mean we cannot have an article about the topic.FOARP (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Of course, if President Trump actually creates this commission (which is possible) than it will be worth having an article on it, but the mere suggestion of having an intent to do something is not enough to create notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, per above. They seem serious about organizing this commission, and it has picked up some good sources which add to its notability. Wikipedia contains articles on upcoming films, television shows, and other topics. This one may fit that mode. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether or not the commission is ever formed, the proposal is notable, and a lot has been written about it. It would be interesting to expand this article to cover the political arguments for and against, to explain federal vs. local involvement in education, and to watch over time as local school districts debate or make changes under the banner of "patriotic education". -- Beland (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least merge. DT has made lots of statements that seemed "serious" at the time. Yet we are still waiting for Melania to present the paperwork showing that her early work met the criteria for her to be in the US that he promised would be revealed in a couple weeks. We are also still waiting to hear about the "incredible things" that his (non-existent) investigators were finding as they searched for Obama's search records in Hawaii. Wikipedia articles are not a debating society. There are plenty of other places on the interwebs for that sirt of thing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - It's a notable enough topic, but it may not warrant its own article unless more comes of it. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 05:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Source, another recent source at which Trump says he will soon sign an executive order creating this commission. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, its notable and there is good sourcing from all media outlets. Deletion is premature when this appears to be a high profile item for both Trump and his supporters. Progressingamerica (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify/merge to Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump. Does not exist yet; if an EO is signed the commission is still not likely to be formed in a Biden administration... Yes, things have been written about it, as has about everything he does, and it can be covered in his positions or general administration coverage. Reywas92Talk 01:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel that the proposal alone has been talked about enough to fulfil notability requirements concerning sources dealing with the subject at length. If there isn't a consensus to keep, we should at least merge to a related field, because people are certainly going to search for this term given the interest and controversy that the proposal has already generated.YUEdits (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2020 (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.