Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Melania (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Free Melania
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(1) Not encyclopedic in nature; (2) has no encyclopedic value - long-term or otherwise; (3) is tabloid, speculative garbage about an incredibly fringe "movement" that no one really cares or knows about. Including Melania Trump. Can't believe this wasn't deleted with the first nom. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 15:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep ( *sigh* ) per WP:GNG and the deletion discussion we had one month ago. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I created this article and I support User:Aoba47's idea of having an article Public image of Melania Trump. I assume Free Melania content would live there. I don't know if the current Free Melania content should be kept or not, but I'd support moving this article, or re-creating the public image article separately (whichever is easier or preferred by editors). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Most of the references in the article (5 out of 9) are about celebrities trying to get a little publicity by using the phrase. Most of what you find on Google is someone trying to make a buck - T-shirts and other paraphernalia for sale. There were a few mainstream articles in January 2017, but this has not been an enduring meme and does not deserve an encyclopedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia article that gets close to BLP vio. Internet memes and hashtages unless a really big deal should not be in an encyclopedia. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Another Believer. Without judging the merits of the article, it passed AfD a month ago. I am opposed to quickly relisting it. Ifnord (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic trivia, plus potentially offensive BLPVIO allegations. Quoting the closer of the first AfD nomination: The result was keep. Sigh. — JFG talk 16:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence the "sigh" in my comment above. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Together: 1.. 2.. 3.. — JFG talk 00:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge into Melanie Trump. I’m also disturbed by quick renoms. The article doesn’t deserve to stand alone; but the subject may deserve brief mention. It could be merged with a substantial trim of cites and text. As that article grows, the editors on that article can then determine how much of the original text (if any) of this article should remain. O3000 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This argument reminds me of the reason Short-fingered vulgarian or Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands were deleted: they were reliably sourced and once popular memes, but were ultimately deemed unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Delete is the wise choice. — JFG talk 17:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not fussed about GNG. Some things don't belong in an encyclopedia and this is one of them, including it reduces the credibility of the project. Early renom seems appropriate reading opinions this time Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Disruptive nom. Passes GNG as notabilty trumps individual intrepretation of NOT. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  18:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * changed to merge per AB. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  11:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete BLPvio meme belongs in some Memepedia. Edison (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is worryingly close to a BLP vio. I'm of the opinion that memes should prove themselves a lasting part of pop culture with relevance outside their meme status to be classified as encyclopedic (such as Pepe the Frog), and BLP-violating memes shouldn't be included at all regardless. For instance, there was a recent meme regarding Millie Bobby Brown conducting homophobic hate crimes which was essentially libel. Would that be included on the encyclopedia? No, of course not. In this case, even just bordering on libel should be deleted to save the reputation of Wikipedia and avoid potential legal trouble. Nanophosis (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Melania Trump. This AfD nomination seems to have been made in bad faith, given how recent the previous nomination was and given that just a few hours ago, I started a merge discussion. The material satisfies WP:N, but merging it may make sense because it's unclear that it can be expanded beyond a stub.- MrX 🖋 22:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Look, I don’t know whether this belongs long- or short-term or not at all. Merging it would given the subject more attention in front of more editors, many of whom have spent far more time on related subjects. And a merge may ultimately result in deletion. For that matter, an AfD delete will not preclude addition to the Melanie Trump article anyhow. A merge may still occur. Which is one of the reasons (other than this is a quick renom) that the merge discussion that was started at that article should have been allowed to continue. Basically, no matter what the result of this AfD, there may still be, or not, related additions to the Melanie article. Classic waste of time. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Judging by the merge discussion currently, it looks like that will not happen. The merge discussion on the main page was helpful to bring eyes to the article already and it appears there is fairly strong opposition to the article and the merge. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTGOSSIP, fails WP:N and may even be WP:POVFORK - pick one.  It's gossip based on speculation.Atsme 📞📧 01:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:GNG. Trivial; Wikipedia is not "know-your-meme". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Not likely to become notable.--MONGO 08:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable nor encyclopedic. Also does not pass GNG. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- as BLP violation and WP:NOTGOSSIP as others have said above. For that reason, I also strongly oppose a merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete– Much for the same reasons as others have stated, it's basically a meme and belongs elsewhere. ToastButterToast (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Melania Trump give the above commentary. Makes me wonder though if a "public image" article can be made for Melania, on a similar level to the one for Sarah Palin. This kind of topic would seem more appropriate as a smaller part of a larger article like that rather than its own separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea of Public image of Melania Trump. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be an interesting option to put the parodies and public response toward Melania Trump. Just wanted to try and help with the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most definitely. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a Public image of Michelle Obama or a Public image of Laura Bush or anything similar for previous First Ladies? The answer, of course, is 'no'.  I see no reason why Melania Trump should have such an article.  Sarah Palin, really?  Not only was she the first female Republican vice presidential candidate in a general election, she had her own reality show, a cable television program, and has continued to be a political speaker since 2008.  She was a governor and has continued with her public "career" - so the article is somewhat merited.  But, she was never First Lady, either -- which is a whole different ballgame, so no comparison.  The current FLOTUS, other than the crap that media focuses on with her (her shoes, he clothes, a jacket she wore) is as low key as the others before her.  Well, Michelle Obama wasn't exactly low-key, but if her public image doesn't merit an article with her being in the news so much over eight years, Melania Trump's public image doesn't, either.  Unless, of course, you'd like to see Wikipedia become an internet version of a grocery store checkout aisle tabloid.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your points. I just wanted to offer an alternative solution and it is nice to get feedback on it. I am uncertain about the public image articles in general to be fair; there are a few for the presidents (i.e. Obama, George W. Bush, etc.) I was uncertain if it would have worked in this context, and I agree with you that it is probably not the best solution. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think the content of this article belong anywhere since its fall under WP:NOT--Rusf10 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Understandable. I stand by my vote. This could be a search term so a redirect may be helpful, but I would not oppose a delete. Aoba47 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is a WP:SPINOFF article. But the Melania Trump article is nowhere near large enough to start requiring spinoffs. What could be done is to create such a section in the Melania Trump article. The current "Fashion" section (a single sentence) could be expanded to something like the "Popularity and style" section at Laura Bush or the "Public image and style" section at Michelle Obama. Even if such a section is created, I would oppose making a redirect out of "Free Melania". --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Re "Melanie"/"Melania": No relation. 0;-D
 * Understandable. Again, I just suggested it as an alternative, but I agree with the comments against it. I only suggested a redirect as it could something that someone searches, but I understand the resistance to it. It is tough to do articles like this, and it is probably best to wait to see if it has any last impact/notability. If Another Believer wants to try at a public image page, then I would suggest that you have a lot of sources for it to make a strong case for it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * When it comes right down to it on wives of American presidents from the 20th century on, with some exceptions, the public image IS what history records. And unless life took them another direction later - i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary - what we know about most of these wives is what has been carefully created and managed by the First Lady image handlers of the time. Even with Jackie Kennedy, history and her own accounts have told us, during the terrible days of her husband's funeral plans, she was in charge, managing the images she wanted us to see and remember. Melania just doesn't have much in the way of First Lady accomplishments thus far. In Melania's case, the image was probably carefully crafted and managed from the day she married a wealthy man. The public image of Melania right now is a case of what we already see. — Maile  (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:GNG. Trivial coverage doesn't meet bar for inclusion. – Lionel(talk) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:BLP violation, failing WP:GNG and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Libertybison (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect - by itself, this meme is not notable, but it is a likely search term. A simple search of Twitter finds 410 recent posts with #FreeMelania. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to List of Internet phenomena. The article is appropriately sourced and appears to be in the same spirit as other political memes listed on WP.
 * Oppose Merge to the main Melania Trump article where it would raise NPOV concerns. Uncle Dick (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, supremely trivial. No redirect either. What are we, Ephemeral Memepedia? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGOSSIP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2018 (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.