Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump and White Supremacy


 * 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   speedy delete (G5, created by a sock of a blocked or banned user). --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump and White Supremacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unencyclopaedic: is essay of no notability, obviously created for purely political purposes. Recommend merge or speedy delete. Dschslava Δx  parlez moi  21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's already covered, more concisely and encyclopedically, at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete overly POV-pushing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete agree unencylopedic personal essay of no value or reason to exist. Sro23 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge As per Clarityfiend. If necessary, we can merge the information onto the presidential campaign article. JTtheOG (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEPhave any of you even read either of the pages in question? This material is barely covered at the main article. Everything is sourced here, and phrased neutrally. There is much more to come. Give this baby a chance to live. This is an obviously notable and significant topic-- far more so than the "Barack Obama Anti-Christ conspiracy theory article" or whatever it's called. I call out the conservative bias of Wikipedia. This is an extremely notable topic. In just an hour, I've assembled over 50 notable sources, and have many, many, many more. (At least 500-1000 notable articles on this topic alone.)Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * And? Am I not alone to speak in my defense? What sort of kangaroo court is this? This is an excellent, heavily sourced page on a topic of enduring international interest. Years from now this is likely to be the only thing anyone remembers about Trump. Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing says you cannot give your opinion. This is just a template used to identify the creator of an article when he or she fails to disclose that information. Meters (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I had no idea a disclosure was necessary. In my opinion, all the reasons given above are altogether spurious. Very little of this information is re-produced elesewhere on this website (please verify these claims with links that show where there is any overlapping material if I am mistaken, I have not seen any), and the material is obviously notable. We have full articles on many much smaller controversies involving political figures that have received much less coverage than this one. In just the first day, I've provided nearly 200 references. What is the need for a rush to suppress this before the article is even fully formed? I added the stub tag indicating a work-in-progress. Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a neutral encyclopedia article but rather a POV pushing essay. The most obvious example of lack of neutrality is that David Duke is described in the present tense as the leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Actually, Duke Duke led one faction of the Klan in the 1970s and quit the Klan in 1980. There are many other such examples. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

so fix the error, this is completely irrelevant as a reason to delete the article; excuse me if I'm not an expert on the leadership structure of the Klan. Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 05:11, 24 July 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.