Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory


 * 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 WP:SNOW delete. There is no reasonable possibility of this being kept, and WP:BLP concerns militate in favor of prompt disposition. BD2412 T 04:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially an article on a current news story, and moreover one that raises BLP issues. Not all conspiracy theories deserve their own article, even those endorsed by a President; if we had an article on every false claim advocated by Trump, we'd have thousands of unnecessary articles. This one is sufficiently documented in Joe Scarborough's article; there's no need for a separate page here, and it doesn't seem likely at the time of writing that there's going to be anything more to add to this one. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly meets WP:N standards. Hundreds of sources, including international sources. Very much like Murder of Seth Rich . Unfounded crap, but pushed online.Casprings (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Seth Rich story has had a lot more media attention over the years than this one, though: there's clearly enough there to justify an independent article. If this article developed to the state that one is in, it would be worth keeping, but I don't see that we need it now. Robofish (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is article needs improvement a reason to delete? There are many WP:RS to meet WP:N.Casprings (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it 'needs improvement' - I'm saying that at present, there doesn't seem to be more to add to it, and so no need for a separate article. A separate article can always be recreated in future if this 'story' does turn out to be as enduring, and receive as much attention, as the Rich story did. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an argument to merge, not to delete.Casprings (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it should be merged then; but it seems to me that the relevant information is already in Scarborough's article (and Mika Brzezinski) so I'm not sure there's anything more to merge here. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment may have issues related NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, FORUM. Drat8sub (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete While some online may posit a conspiracy, Trump just implies murder, title's all wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * True - if the article is to be kept, it should also be renamed, since it's not just Trump's theory. But 'Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory' would seem to have even more blatant BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "murder allegation"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We should really try to avoid 'allegation' in article titles (though sometimes it's unavoidable). Robofish (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" was avoidable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Donald Trump on social media or Veracity of statements by Donald Trump Wikipedia is not news, but redirecting here is a viable alternative to deletion, especially given the (however slim) potential this could develop further notability wise. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Regarding the name, I haven't seen anyone suggesting a conspiracy, though some reports are using the term "conspiracy theory". I guess the people who believe this are arguing the autopsy was fake - and that would make this a conspiracy... The theory doesn't originate with Trump, so it shouldn't be termed Donald Trump's anything. It was also raised by Michael Moore and has circulated for almost 20 years. I don't believe that the current title or anything similar would be a useful redirect because it's not a likely search term. Lori Klausutis is a likely search term, but that redirect is being considered for deletion. I don't think there is any point in merging this article. The allegation is already mentioned on several other articles, and there is no point in having a standalone article at this point in time. It is true that Wikipedia has several questionable Trump-related articles such as Bowling Green massacre, but we don't need another one.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Random thoughts This has been added to Joe Scarborough with a load of BLP problems. I’ve tried to clean it up, although I don’t know if it should be mentioned at all there. I linked to this article there to trim the text. Yes, if this article is kept, the title should be modified. I wouldn’t have created it so soon. But, it may be required at some point. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need an article every time a well-documented pathological liar trumps his pants. Not News. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I guess I will WP:IAR. Additionally WP:NOTNEWS we are not here to print publish everything WP:NOT. Lightburst (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Long standing consensus that this death is not notable and content fork from scarborough.. Jimbo weighed in at the time with consideration for the deceased's spouse and sensationalism and conspiracy nature of the allegation. ConstantPlancks (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, though it's unlikely that someone would search for that title). Just another bit of malicious screwiness from the nutjob in chief. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per the article, Twitter says that "statements by the President, even false ones, are newsworthy". Possibly, but false statements by Trump aren't Wikipedia-worthy other than en masse. This one already has a paragraph in the too-shyly named but otherwise good article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which is certainly all it needs. I don't see much need for a redirect. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete - First, this isn't exclusive to Trump. Michael Moore and others have been bringing this up for decades. Second, there's nothing here that can't be telescoped (with sources) to Scarborough's article as a paragraph at most. -- Veggies (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The content is already covered in Joe Scarborough and Donald Trump on social media. No need to try to redirect this unsearchable title. StonyBrook (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as NOTNEWS and to stop compounding the widower's pain.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Include it to the List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and redirect there (it's better to keep the history of this page though). It should not be kept a standalone page because it is already included in "Veracity of statements" page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Casprings. BS of course, but appropriate to cover under our rules. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7569:29DF:EAB6:121E (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not news. Just because something gets broad coverage in news does not make it notable. This can receive a balanced mention in the articles on Trump and Scarborough, although I am not sure it is even worth mentioning in the latter. There is no reason to create a seperate article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Even though it is covered in major media, it is fairly recent and hence can be addressed as a section within the Scarborough article. In the future, if the conspiracy theory continues to be prominent, say six months or a year in the future, it may deserve its own article. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As observes above, this is not Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. It's been around for decades. Moreover, the longstanding Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory has not been deemed worthy of its own page, nor has it been added to the list of conspiracy theories. This new page, specific to Donald Trump, flunks both Notability and WP:NOTNEWS. NedFausa (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Just because a conspiracy theory gets in the news, it is not worthy of being a Wikipedia article. It does not meet the requirements set by WP:N. However, it may be best to merge it into Joe Scarborough as a section. As mentioned earlier, this conspiracy theory has been around for more than a decade, and it is not Donald Trump’s idea. Therefore, it has to do with Joe Scarborough and NOT Donald Trump.
 * Merging into Joe Scarborough is a terrible idea. That BLP is being carefully edited to, among other things, avoid naming Lori Klausutis—something that is done repeatedly and for no good reason in Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. Delete, yes. Merge, no! NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete waste of space, and the origin of the conspiracy is not attributable to Trump, that appears to be down to Markos Moulitsas and Michael Moore. Acousmana (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for now - I'm not seeing anything right now that warrants this topic having its own article. Other articles can perfectly summarize this without leaving out a lot of important information. Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete In a perfect world we'd be able to have a Death of Lori Klausutis article ... there are some good questions about the autopsy and its finding that the media is treating as dispositive in this case, as well as Scarorough's behavior after the body was discovered (For the record, as I've said elsewhere online, I do not think he killed her (he couldn't have) or even that he had her killed. But I think it's still possible someone did, and that Scarborough may have known, or thought he knew, something about the death that he didn't want getting out). But no reliable source has ever discussed these issues. When one does, we can have it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 31 May 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.