Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump email controversy


 * 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 Redirect to Legal affairs of Donald Trump.

It's clear that this topic has generated quite a bit of media coverage, to the point where it isn't going to be deleted on notability grounds. The central issue in this discussion is WP:NOTNEWS: whether the coverage given to the subject is enough for a standalone article or doesn't indicate long term significance. This is ultimately a matter of editorial judgement and neither position on this issue is unreasonable. However far more people have come down on the side of not having a standalone article on the subject and that is the tone of the discussion below. Several people on both sides have left arguments based on accusations that the other side's actions are politically motivated, these are frankly not helpful and I have tried to ignore them.

Having established that we aren't going to have a standalone article on the subject, the other question is whether it should be included in Legal affairs of Donald Trump or not. There is substantial support/consent for a merge in the discussion below, mainly from people who don't want a standalone article, but also a few people who object to a merge. As whether to include this content in the target article and what kind of information to merge is all up to editorial discretion and can be decided outside AfD anyway, I am going to close as Redirect and let the issue of any potential merge be thrashed out on the relevant talk pages. -- Hut 8.5  19:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump email controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pretty blatant hit-piece that has "coincidentally" sprung up in the week before the election. Massive WP:BLP concerns. Article's creator has admitted support for Clinton and complained about "pro-Trump bias". Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 09:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC) ***Correction***: you are deliberately twisting my words! --SI 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Boomerang, - Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.  If something is verifiable and covered by multiple reliable sources, we don't censor it just because you don't like it. The article is perfectly valid for inclusion in WP, per numerous policies, though of course it can benefit from expansion. Censorship of Trump articles seems to be an ongoing thing with his supporters (just now restored a working reference someone had deleted from the article). Apparently we can't even include his upcoming court hearing for rape of a minor because someone wants to discuss it first, even though the hearing and allegations have widespread coverage! (Question for the proposer on the subject of bias - is s/he trying to keep out the latest FBI investigation of Clinton emails from that article, even though those allegations '"coincidentally" sprung up in the week before the election' too?) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where have I disrupted Wikipedia, where have I called for censorship of this material, and where have I said I don't like it? Please don't strawman. I haven't made an argument anywhere that this should be wiped from Wikipedia completely, only that this particular article should be deleted. You've completely ignored that the article's creator is a self-proclaimed Clinton supporter, do you think Trump supporters should be able to make an article about the myriad Clinton "controversies" that receive avalanches of coverage in right-wing sources? Try assuming some good faith. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 09:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - actually, is this even a valid AfD? "Massive BLP concerns"... aren't listed. "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)" don't apply either - the subject could hardly be more notable right now, the content is verifiable and reliably sourced, and nothing in WP:NOT seems to apply. So really this comes down to "I don't like it". Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article currently states, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump committed obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and is a vexatious litigant. Two of those are felonies, and all are probably defamatory, which is why the BLP policy was implemented. Imagine this was any other celebrity, do you think that would be acceptable? &#161;Bozzio&#33; 09:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If those allegations are not based on RS (or are grossly misrepresented/put out of proportion) and the article only serves as attack page to defame the subject the article could (and should) be speedy deleted. There are criteria for cases like that, namely WP:G10 and perhaps WP:G10. Just as a general note, I haven't checked the subject though. Dead Mary (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. No controversy is stated, and this small topic doesn't warrant an article of its own. It can fit in a paragraph or two of a more comprehensive article. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 10:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump per my comments on the talk page. The article doesn't point out what the controversy is, or why it needs to be a standalone article. All of the material covered on this page can easily be covered elsewhere. This article title appears to try to mirror the one about Clinton. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. This strikes me as an unnecessary and non-neutral content fork. The Legal affairs article isn't too long and can easily accommodate this content, which appears designed as a pointy response to Hillary Clinton email controversy and in contrast doesn't have much of a life of its own. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-neutral.  Most of the "story" is about not having a document retention policy.  That in itself is not a controversy.  The part about deleting email related to lawsuits was alleged but the "controversy" went nowhere because the case was settled. MB 16:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per MB. This is a stitched-together idea for an article. —Torchiest talkedits 17:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge per Dr Fleischman. Maybe a brief summary could be merged with Legal affairs of Donald Trump. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Nearly all the sources that I had added have meanwhile been removed, also content from the article. Certainly the article was still a stub, but I would have and will improve when I have time and hoped and hope that other contributors would help instead of just destroying sources and content to force for deletion. Article quality, especially when intentionally disrupted, is not a reason to delete. (More sources here) --SI 17:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Parsley Man (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If sources were improperly deleted then raise the issue on the talk page. On first glance it looks to me like some of the deletions were proper and some were not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – Nothingburger. A brief mention is warranted in Legal affairs of Donald Trump but please do not redirect because the title of this page is intentionally misleading, as noted by several commenters. — JFG talk 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable; has received significant coverage in reliable sources, following a cover story in Newsweek, and not just an isolated incident but a decade-long practice. Trump himself has made email transparency the seemingly most important issue of the election. --Tataral (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge a brief summary to Legal affairs of Donald Trump without leaving a redirect. This is not something that has gained any kind of notability; if anything it seems to have emerged only as a counterpoint to Hillary Clinton email controversy. Wikipedia should not be a part of that kind of gamesmanship. If an admin feels this has reached SNOW territory I would encourage that kind of close - rather than relying on PROCESS to make this thing hang around until after the election. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename, redirect, and merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump - It's not a controversy (at least not yet) and there is simply not enough coverage or substance to justify an independent article. I mistakenly thought the MSM would be all over this, because the system is rigged, and it's a rigged system. It's totally rigged. Believe me. - MrX 23:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The controversy is unlikely to grow large enough to warrant its own article, and as others have noticed, the current title seems to be a deliberate mirroring of the Hillary Clinton email controversy.


 * However, I'd like to briefly take issue with the OP's statement about SI. The linked comment from SI says they are "really not in favour of Mrs. Clinton," but just feel that "Mr. Trump will to an exponential degree be so much worse." So it is incorrect for Bozzio to say that the article creator has "admitted support for Clinton." Even if that is true, an editor's political preferences are not a valid reason for arguing that an article should be deleted. In fact, editors naturally gravitate to articles the opposite of their personal beliefs. While I'm arguing for a merge, I nonetheless want this AfD to be as fair as possible in case someone else has much stronger reasons for keeping the article.  Jasper  TECH  (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete Wikipedia is NOT news. It does not exist as a digest to news stories. When an article essentially says "Newsweek made allegations of x" than we have a case of POV and article forking without adequate sources. There are hardly the required "multiple" sources to establish the notability of a subject, and no where near the sources that would be needed to justify forking this content out of a larger article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - sniffs like a Red herring mudball thrown out in the last week of election. Doesn't seem to have gotten enough WP:WEIGHT of coverage to be worth an article, and the piece it's from or status as a 2016 'controversy' seems to lack WP:N.   Seems to be just a rant about 1973 bundled with one about a casino 2005 lawsuit mentioned.  That was re-mentioned in the summer and went nowhere, now this repackaged and rerun under a new label.   Really, it's just a tiny ranting, not covered in major outlets or important enough for an article -- certainly nothing on scale of debate mentioned or getting headlines.  The guy wrote a little rant piece because there's a market for such and made a little sale, ignore it and move on.  Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There is one article, written by Kurt Eichenwald for Newsweek Europe on October 31, 2016, about various Trump business activities between 1973 and 2001, some of which resulted in settled legal cases. The other sources in 'Donald Trump email controversy' were based on Eichenwald's Newsweek article, e.g. International Business Times UK (which stated in its coverage that it is owned by the same media company that owns Newsweek), or The Huffington Post. HuffPo appends the following language to every article about Donald Trump: "Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther", which suggests to me that it is not NPOV regarding Donald Trump. I agree with MB's recommendation above, that there isn't enough substance here to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. I would suggest deletion, after merging a sentence into the Legal Affairs of Donald Trump, with one citation to Eichenwald's coverage in Newsweek Europe as a reference.--FeralOink (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I just realized that there was also a June 2016 report via USA Today, about the lack of email document retention policies at Trump businesses between 1996 and 2001, including this observation: "Trump was not accused of doing anything illegal at the time and he clearly was not a public official". This Wikipedia entry is misleading as it gives undue emphasis to subject matter that is not comparable in scale or notability to Hillary Clinton's email disclosures, which is further reinforced by the parallel article names ('Donald Trump email controversy' and Hillary Clinton email controversy).--FeralOink (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep This afd is motivated by partisan intent, where conservative partisans want to censor the flaws of a candidate they like, and wikipedia should not take sides in partisanship like this. 00ff00 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is your rationale for voting, then the closer is likely to ignore it. Please assume good faith and use policy based arguments as to why you believe this article should be kept, and the material not included in any of the other articles devoted to Trump's controversies. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How is a frivolous afd not vandalism? Vandalism, by definition, is not good faith. This article has a very important place in wikipedia, and it should stay. 00ff00 (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag the page for deletion for partisan reasons, but because it's extremely small. The creator of the page has also admitted to being a Clinton supporter. Don't use Wikipedia to make a point. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC))


 * Very Strong Delete I am the one who first proposed this article for deletion, not due to beliefs but because it is too small to have its own page. The name, in my opinion, is also very misleading (I initially thought it was an issue similar to Mrs. Clinton's). (TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Delete as per . There's not enough independent notability on this issue to justify an article all on its own. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete AFAIK there's very little coverage of this, unlike the Clinton email controversy. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and do it asap. Is a faked "controversy", obviously cobbled together for no other reason than to be a response article to Hillary Clinton email controversy - but the subject bears no real comparison and its content has not enough notability for a stand alone article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge This article can properly be covered under Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Also, if this controversy dates as far back as 1973, when emails weren't involved, then why is the word "email" used in the title? I also think that before consensus is made on this decision, the page shouldn't be included in Template:Trump. WClarke (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete First of all, this could easily be confused with the Clinton email controversy, a significant issue right now. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are presidential candidates; perhaps if somebody sees the article in question, they would confuse it with the one on Clinton's email controversy, or just assume that Trump had done the same thing, or nearly the same thing, as Clinton.  In fact, they are completely different issues.  In assuming good faith, I will not assume that this article was published with the sole purpose of responding to the Clinton email scandal, which has recently been revived by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, however, I do believe that it may be serving such a purpose, whether intentionally or not.  If the legality of the actions described in the article was disputed, I would propose that the article in question be merged with the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article.  However, an article by USA Today states that this is not the case.  Because the actions described in this article were not illegal, I do not see its relevance.  Further, many news articles cited in the article simply published their articles as a response to the Clinton email scandal, whether or not the article itself was intended in this way.  This seems to me, therefore, as against Wikipedia's no news guideline.  The article is about an issue which seems to have little significance, other than to cancel out the Clinton email scandal and convince people not to base their vote on the email scandal.  That, to me, seems to conflict with what Wikipedia is, and this article will likely become irrelevant after Election Day in the United States of America.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, with non-biased, purely factual information on a wide variety of subjects; this article does not comply with that, being relevant only to ensure that Hillary Clinton does not lose support over the ongoing email scandal.Wikier1010 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your "argument" is just one long, drawn out way of saying WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. Not a valid reason for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument is that this article is news, not encyclopedic content. Further, now that the election in the United States has ended, I think this issue will become irrelevant. Wikier1010 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete This article is motivated by partisan intent, where liberal partisans want to illustrate the flaws of a candidate they dislike, and wikipedia should not take sides in partisanship like this. --Malerooster (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In particular "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument. Neither is crying "POV!" (especially when it doesn't exist). We don't delete articles for alleged POV, only lack of notability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I tagged the article for deletion, I believe the creator of the article had good faith intentions. Please assume good faith. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Good faith intentions are hard to accept when the article's creator seems to have consciously chose this title for the article so that it could purport to be similar in subject and stature to Hillary Clinton email controversy - here is Schmarrnintelligenz adding a "see also" [] to the Clinton emails article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete random accusation promoted week before election by Kurt Eichenwald who has promoted falsities about Trump before. Immediate delete. KMilos (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In particular "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument. Neither is crying "POV!" (especially when it doesn't exist). We don't delete articles for alleged POV, only lack of notability. Also, please keep in mind that BLP applies to discussion pages and your opinions on Kurt Eichenwald, a Pulitzer finalist and a widely respected journalist, are neither here nor there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no legitimate and widespread coverage of any such "scandal," imagined or otherwise. The subject matter is unnotable and of zero significance. Nagylelkű (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Easily disproven by the fact that there are indeed a lot of sources on this issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Explain how.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I've never even heard of this controversy before until now. Parsley Man (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is that in the guidelines, that only articles are notable that you have heard of before? --SI 07:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Man, if I can use "I never of this" in deletion discussion, there's like hundreds I'd like to see deleted. Let me at'em, just point me to'em (I can't find'em myself since I've never heard of them yet)Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I literally have never heard of this in the news, and believe me, I watch a lot of news. Including mainstream media channels people would claim are "anti-Trump". I don't read online news that much, though, so I might've missed it there, but still, I think I should've heard about it at least once on television by now. Parsley Man (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Onel 5969  TT me 15:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh how funny, that you are using the exact same rationale as User:LM2000 above. Word for word.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No stand-alone notability here that potentially can't fit into other related articles. User2534 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: most of the delete votes are not referring to the current status of the article, which has been significantly improved and sourced. Especially, some of those delete comments seem to (willingly?) deny the amount and quality of sources that have been posted here, on the article talk page and added to the article. --SI 03:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? The article is still significantly short compared to its counterpart, the Hillary Clinton email controversy. If there are more sources out there that do not repeat the information already provided in this article and instead contribute something new, then you'd be better post them ASAP if you want to sway the AfD vote in your favor. Parsley Man (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you say that the article has to have a similar length like the (rather lengthy) Clinton article? Where is the guideline for such a criterion? --SI 07:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just making a point on how small it still is. Like, I'm expecting more sections and more information. Given this has already been a story for five months and it's revolving around one of the most controversial presidential candidates in recent memory, I'd expect more coverage to come out of this, and therefore more content to work on. Instead, all we have is a "Development" section. Parsley Man (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: as there has been the question if the title was only copying the Clinton email controversy, no, but as stated before I certainly support to find a better one and this has been fixed now. --SI 05:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep: With wp:RS sources during prior 6 months, for issues spanning 20 years, this is not just wp:NEWS but a long-term topic, compared to "Hillary Clinton email clearance" which was resolved in July 2016 to not file charges by FBI nor U.S. Justice Department because her deletions were proven to be routine cleanup, with no case of destruction of evidence or coverup, but Trump's email deletions have not been proven as innocent. So, Keep then rename Clinton page from "controversy" to "clearance" because controversy was over when both FBI and DoJ separately cleared Clinton of proposed charges. Oppose merger into "Legal affairs of Donald Trump" as wp:COATRACK which would further overstuff that page by wp:TLDR as wp:UNDUE weight to explain email controversy fully where judge was shocked how Trump emails were deleted. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am very willing to reconsider my delete vote if more verifiable, well-sourced content can be posted on the article, content that will convince me on the subject's noteworthiness. Parsley Man (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The criterion for including something in Wikipedia is its coverage in WP:RS. The entry lists 21 WP:RS, which is enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Most of the calls for deletion do not state a valid Wikipedia policy or guideline. Many simply disagree with the judgment of the multiple WP:RS. Many seem to be motivated by a partisan support for Trump. --Nbauman (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmhh, I doubt that 90% of AfD commenters are rabid Trump partisans. Check out Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. This article might as well get rejected per WP:FART, although nobody has quoted this argument yet. — JFG talk 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, User:JFG, you are not making a serious argument and citing unofficial Wikipedia essays or jokes. The significant fact is that Trump's document destruction has been reported by multiple WP:RSs, and is therefore notable. You have not addressed that fact. Could you please do so? --Nbauman (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear I've seen the soruces, and so have all editors who vote Delete or Merge. We simply apply common sense to a story that has been refused by many serious reporters, so that it has no weight. Quoting WP:FART stretches the point, but what's wrong with some humour? I doubt anybody will still talk about this story after election day, irrespective of who gets elected. — JFG talk 03:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I for one am not the biggest Trump fan, nor am I the biggest Clinton fan. But this article, as it stands right now, has not convinced me of its notability. All it has to its name right now is one section of information. The other sections are the mandatory "References" section and the optional "See also" section linking to Legal affairs of Donald Trump (which in fact people nominated to have this very article merged to). I understand that Wikipedia is not finished, but this article has been up for a week now, and surely if the topic is notable like the proponents have said, there'd be way more relevant information piling into this article by now, right? Parsley Man (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: where is that guideline stating that the current length of the article requires deletion? --SI 07:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. you are welcome to help expanding it! Just a helping hint for that: when you are looking/googling for more sources, those keep being a bit hidden and don't show up easily on the first 10 google results, because "Trump email" and similar search entries only get you Clinton results because this has been bloated so excessively by Trump's aggressive humilitating populism and media always reporting the loudest and most aggressive squaller first and only. --SI 07:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline. But like I said earlier, I sort of expect this article to have more information if the subject matter is supposed to be that notable, considering it's Trump during the 2016 presidential election. Parsley Man (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - good sourcing and since this has to be included *somewhere* the only other option is to put it in one of the already way way way too long articles on Trump or his presidential campaign. Having a separate article both follows policy and ameliorates and existing problem of bloat in those other articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The most of the sourcing is crap - alternet, the stranger, huffpo, dailykos, gawker, ensarz. once you remove those, all that's left is the newsweek and usatoday stories, which have gotten very little coverage in other RSs that have devoted acres of space to trump's scandals. If this article is worth keeping, where's the nyt, wsj, washpo, latimes? worth a sentence or two in DJT's lgal affairs. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WaPo, MSN, NBC, MSNBC, VOX, NYmag, IBT, ... --SI 07:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You listed the same Chris Matthews interview three times. The blog entry on WaPo's Fix+Newsweek+USAtoday+ smattering of others adds up to a line or two in another article. Having a stand-alone would be an absurd violation of WP:WEIGHT. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Works fine as a paragraph or two in Trump's article and/or the one about his legal affairs. Not much substance, as a controversy, and unlikely to escalate further, assuming he doesn't win the election. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit comment "Also, delete all trace of us ever discussing deleting it." lets assume your are not serious, are you? --SI 16:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Hasn't gained much prominence in the media and might not ever. NYT forecast currently has Trump at >95% chance of winning. God bless him. Emily Goldstein (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aaaaannnnnddddd...what does this possible victory have anything to do with deleting this article, exactly?... Parsley Man (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes it more likely the story will grow sometime over the next four years, after (or while) the media burns through the juicier stuff. Potential significant coverage isn't as good for Keep as actual coverage, but it's tipped AfDs before. I'm sticking with Delete, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - No activity for the past three days or so. If there are more sources as some have claimed, I am not seeing them... Parsley Man (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Definitely notable, with significant, in-depth coverage from multiple WP:RS, but not enough for a separate article. If further allegations come to light, and the section gets too big, it can always be split off later. Wikishovel (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Closing?
Would someone mind requesting an admin to close this? There is pretty much no new discussion and it's time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know who is in charge of AfDs, though... Parsley Man (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ . — JFG talk 07:52, 19 November 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.