Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump "compromised" claims


 * 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 Procedural closure. Speedily deleted by as WP:G10 and now at deletion review.  Sandstein  11:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump "compromised" claims

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not very notable conspiracy theory. We do not need articles on every 2 bit conspiracy theory that comes along ©Geni (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete any content that is verified by reliable sources can be placed in the Donald Trump or 2016 United States election interference by Russia articles. The article is a magnet for potential BLP and vandalism issues, and is based upon what are as of now, unverified documents. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sheer amount of coverage makes it notable by itself, true or not. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete immediately as a gross and obvious BLP violation. We don't lead and we are not news.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a gross BLP violation. No matter what you think of Trump, all pages related to BLPs must adhere to the site's policies. As stated on every reputable article I've read about this topic (ugh), there is no concrete evidence. APK whisper in my ear  08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The one claim has been removed. (that's an improvement) There's a new section at 2016 United States election interference by Russia, where allegations that are not a gross BLP violation (and we all know what I'm talking about) could be added if properly sourced and discussed on the talk page. APK whisper in my ear  08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, without the content of the allegations, this is a totally insignificant waste of space as an article; at the moment, it literally amounts to, "Donald Trump was handed a document by the FBI." And so the world shakes!  But as soon as it includes the allegations, it's a gross BLP violation.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not referred to as a "conspiracy theory" by any of these dozens of reliable sources - it appears to be a fact that these claims were taken seriously enough by U.S. intelligence officials to present to Trump himself. While this is undoubtedly a sensitive issue, so were the Podesta emails and that article exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't let's have another Gamergate etc that ends up in semantics and quibbles about news sourcing. Apply WP:NOTNEWS and move on. When/if decent sources reflect on the historical record then we might cover it. Right now it looks like a BLP violation and if there was in fact any substance then it could be dealt with in the Trump article. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopelessly partisan, to the extent that it might well be considered a G11, or even an attack page.  DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete given current unsubstantiation, BLP concerns, and NOTNEWS. Should this turn out to be true or substantiated, an article on he scandal would make sense. But not with the current title or content. Delete until such a time, if it arises.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy SNOW Delete as BLP-vio (WP:G10). Not to mention WP:NOTNEWS. Anything reliably sourced can go into the base articles referred to above by . -- Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has been toned down and improved. I am guessing improvements will continue. Supported by reliable sources such as the New York Times and NPR and so on. I think every mainstream news organization is covering this. I think the title of the article might need to be changed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete should be CSD'd per G10. Any possible improvement would be lipstick on a pig.  BLP dictates deletion.  Media has their standards, we have ours.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * SNOW Delete per WP:BLPVIO and WP:NOTNEWS. I'm beginning to think that Wikipedia should have a global 3-day "cooling period" on using any sensationalist news stories as reliable sources in the domain of US politics. — JFG talk 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete probably speedy G10. BLP violations don't become not BLP violations because they're about the POTUS.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2017 (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.