Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump tax evasion 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 speedy delete. WP:G5 Neil N  talk to me 19:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump tax evasion controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NOTE: PER THOUGHTMONKEY'S HELPFUL SUGGESTION, THE NAME OF THE ARTICE HAS BEEN CHANGED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOPAGE. This is an article about quite literally one line in one debate. Clear violation of WP notability and historical value  Ergo Sum  18:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - We don't need a page for every argument that was brought up in a Presidential debate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep You are wrong. This is not about "one line in the debate."

1. There were the 3 follow up questions afterwards, which the campaign refused to answer. 2. There has been an ongoing controversy about why Trump has not released his tax returns, which is why the quesiton was asked in the first place, and which I plan to add, but despite the stub tag indicating a work in progress you immediately try to delete my article. What sort of welcome is this? 3. There is the 250 million fraud investigation from NY Attorney General which is referenced in the article, and which is a separte tax issue. 4. There is the recent charity tax fraud unearthed. 5. The people have a right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a much bigger deal than the Hillary e-mails, which have their own page, or the Obama birther conspiracy, which has its own page. If you delete this page, I ask that you delete those pages, too, in fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Why doesn't everyone here help me expand the page, rather than simply trying to delete it? Destruction of knowledge does not mean the knowledge goes away. Is this a case of "I don't like this, this challenges my world-view, I want to delete it so I can feel warm at night"? Improve the page rather than searching for pages to destroy like a vandal in the night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that your entrance into Wikipedia involves an article for deletion. Despite this, please do stick around; it's nothing personal and this can be a fun place. Nonetheless, the article is in clear violation of several Wikipedia policies, as I've described above. The purpose of these policies is not the achieve "fairness" in the political arena, but to be prudent in Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. That being said, there's no need to lob accusations at other editors of bias in editing. This AfD forum is intended as a place for civil discussion of matters in which editors are expected to remove themselves from their own personal, political, and other interests.  Ergo Sum  18:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. My point remains: this is not really about one line in the debate. There was a reason the question was asked in the first place; it is historically unprecedented for a candidate to not reveal their returns, and there are several independent investigations going on into improprities. I mention the liberal pages because it seems to me that the Trump controversy is as worthy of a page in an encylopedia as these other controversies, which turned out to be much ado about nothing. Even then, if the Trump tax issue turns out to be bogus, there was nothing wrong in having the page, in that there are pages about controversies on other political figures that also turned out to be nothing. And I smell blood in the water here. I'll eat my hat if Trump isn't a tax dodge and I have plenty of sources that I think back the claim that this is notable event receiving scads of coverage.


 * Note I moved the page to Donald Trump income tax controversy. In case you don't know, tax evasion has a specific meaning and is not the same as not paying or owing income taxes.  To me, WP policy on living persons (WP:BLP) required an immediate action. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the move. I did not know this.


 * Keep or Merge There should be an article on the whole topic of Mr. Trump's income tax returns as related to his presidential campaign. If so merge this one there.  If not put some of the other related material here.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This: Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 is where the info is now.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - I just want to note for the benefit of Return of the King, who made the original page and is also posting on the AfD. You expressed a concern that "the people have a right to know"... that's the media's job. The question here is whether this issue merits an entire Wikipedia article. I don't think that it does, for the reasons that the AfD OP cited. We can't get caught up in making Wikipedia pages for every political firestorm that comes down the pipe. You implied that the opposition to this page is coming from Trump supporters but I can assure you that I'm not a Trump supporter. I just question whether this mandates its own separate page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This implication about anyone's politics was somewhat overwrought and misguided. However, to rephrase the point I was aiming for in a neutral way, I still think that this is worthy of a page for the same reason that the Obama Birther conspiracy and the Hillary e-mail conspiracy was. Namely, all three controversies have received a lot of independent media coverage. It only got asked about in a presidential debate with 80 million watching because it's important and a lot of people care about it and have written about it. I know the article presently needs work, but I don't have too much more time to spend on it for now, so I'd ask other people to try to help and contribute. Without stating it politically to mean that others are politically motivated if they oppose, I do think this is a controversy of similar importance to other political controversies that have their own pages. There is really a lot out there on this and it has been covered for months. Trump is the first candidate for years not to file returns, and there are multiple elements of the controversy that are just being discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment To reiterate, Wikipedia articles are not deleted in accordance with how they relate to the balance of political views on Wikipedia. They are kept or deleted in accordance with encyclopedic policies. Whether someone feels that the controversy is worthy of inclusion is irrelevant; only objective notability, such as reliable media coverage not from opinion outlets, standing the test of time, etc. is relevant. My personal views on the controversy are wholly irrelevant, just as the inclusion of some other articles on controversies affecting politicians are. Wikipedia does not maintain equal coverage; it maintains encyclopedic coverage.  Ergo Sum  18:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Again, fair enough. However, I think you'll find that there has been media coverage of Trump's tax returns in major newspapers nearly every day of the last 365. This is not an ephemeral debate phenomenon; rather, the question was only repeatedly raised during the debate with 80 million watching because it has received so much media coverage and public interest already. Would the question have even been brought up during the debate if it was as non-notable as you claim? I assure you, there are tons of sources. I will try to add more when I have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 September 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.