Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump tax scandal


 * 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 sock of User:Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump tax scandal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Newly created article on extremely recent event, serious WP:NPOV violations and potentially WP:OR. RA 0808 talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP Incredibly well-sourced, crisp, adventurous prose, important current event that is a must-have for any encylopedia worthy of the name. We need this article.Political Animal (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator, this article is extremely biased and it hasn't even been 24 hours since this information has been made public. We do not know the lasting effect of this yet partly because this campaign has had a scandal or some sort of controversy every other week. I suggest including this is Donald Trump presidential campaign article in a neutral way however.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 18:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. "...one of the greatest political scandals of all time..." - Really? Even if this is kept, it will need to be fundamentally rewritten. This is pure sensation. Very early to determine lasting notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 October 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.