Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Night in Sweden


 * 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 First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. And merge whatever content editors want to from the history. Although no one outcome (keep, delete, merge, redirect) has consensus, we do have consensus that this should not be covered in its own article, and the redirect/merge closure reflects that. Of course, editors remain free to merge content into other relevant articles such as Sweden-bashing, if that article is being kept.  Sandstein  15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Last Night in Sweden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think this is notable enough for inclusion. NEWS and RECENT, etc. we don't need to make an article about every Presidential statement. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk)  14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: This is much more than a misleading statement by President Trump based on Fox News. It is part of a social phenomenon Sweden-bashing that itself is a catalyst for discussion on exclusion/inclusion, walls/bridges, media reliability, the role of the press. It is an integral part of one of the most topical potent, and emerging conversation of our times. It ties into many aspects of the fake news phenomenon. The story is still emerging and the article can always be deleted later with content merged into other article sections if it is later found to be undeserving.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It certainly is notable and there don't appear to be some other article to put it in. For instance "I'm not a crook" redirects to the Watergate scandal. // Liftarn (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable enough, can be mentioned in another existing article, no need for separate article. Φεμδποεηβψδ εμδοδφψη (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, has received substantial coverage, but should probably be renamed to something along the lines of "Donald Trump Sweden statement". This incident is similar to the Bowling Green massacre incident which also received a lot of coverage. On a separate note, I'm not sure both this article and Sweden-bashing need to exist. κατάστασ  η  18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, which should be expanded to discuss Trump's (many) false statements (In the first 34 days, 133 false or misleading claims were tallied). If we keep doing this, we'll have hundreds and hundreds of articles. Neutralitytalk 19:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - come on, do we really need a full article for everything our...illustrious...president says? I think a good merge target is First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. (And I still maintain that Bowling Green massacre should also not have an article, let alone DYK...does anyone even remember it anyways?) ansh 666 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, there are so many flash in the pan alternative facts it's hard to keep them straight. A central place for them to sit is a good idea rather than fracturing them all up into separate articles with a very low likelihood of ever getting expanded or maybe even seen in the first place. Ifnord (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Trump is getting a lot of coverage for everything he does, but we shouldn't create an article for every one. This is not notable. It will be forgotten in a couple of months.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. --Fëanor (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to 2017 Rinkeby riots, an article regarding which I am of two minds. It is now clear quite either that Steve Bannon arranged for riots to break out in Rinkeby to prove that something happened #LastNightinSweden, or that the Rinkeby riots are the only thing that gives enduring significance to what appeared to be yet another temporary blip in the news cycle, a forgettable idiocy until a disadvantaged neighborhood of Stockholm erupted in a blaze of torched Volvos.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for now; I was going to go with "Merge" to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency but that article is already quite long. I also tend to agree that this is not just about Trump's misstatement, but (in a way) about European migrant crisis and Trump's immigration policy. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - very silly article based on a single off-the-cuff sentence by Donald Trump. He has a known propensity for talking in a rambling way, with lots of sentence fragments that don't go anywhere. What he said was "You look at what's happening last night in Sweden". If you read that instead as "You look at what's happening - [based on what they showed on TV] last night - in Sweden", which is presumably what he meant, then there's no problem. If every sentence or tweet by Trump that got a lot of publicity for a few days got its own article, you could have a 100-article "Statements by Trump" category. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency and/or Sweden-bashing. Unlike alternative facts, this incident isn't really that notable. We don't need an article for every time the Trump administration says something that doesn't make sense. Celestialghost (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge (as a brief mention) into First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency or delete if that article can't support it. This was one passing comment that received some attention at the time, but it seems unlikely that it will have enough ongoing notability to be worth an article all of its own, separate from Trump's other statements. (NOTNEWSPAPER) Mortee (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. See Michelle Obama's arms and Bill Clinton haircut controversy. This tendency ought to be nipped in the bud. Srnec (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't it be merged or redirected instead? Keiiri (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree creating articles based on this kind of thing is a worrying trend.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not even clear what Trump intended to say, and there's no justification for creating an encyclopedia article about one sentence he said. Avaya1 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge somewhere. It was an interesting sequence of events but I just don't see enough sources cited. The strained prose seems to reflect the author's efforts to supply needed context without committing OR.  If more source material arose, this wouldn't be necessary.  Until then, add this to Category:Zero-byte Articles. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency; it needs a section on "President Trump's public statements" or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable for stand alone article and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. There was enough press coverage about it for a mention in the First 100 days article, but not enough for a standalone page. This is Paul (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think the topic itself is notable considering the vast amount of coverage and attention given to the subject by news media, late night shows and the Swedish government. Might not warrant it's own article though, but I honestly think so since First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency is getting crowded and could likely only accomodate the contents of this article as a short remark, something I would consider not proportional to notability. I encourage people who have issues with statements in the article to talk it through on the talk page and fix the issues instead of using it as an argument against the fate of the article. I think people would be more inclined to vote Keep if they would have spent time in Sweden during the event (where is was, understandably, a major topic of conversation/ridicule). Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fox News or somewhere. Trump was referring to a Fox News story. Content is too trivial for stand-alone article and Wikipedia is is not a newspaper, but if this content must be somewhere, I propose it be added it to Fox News as Fox News v. Sweden still goes on. (Latest twist being "Nils Bildt", see, , ) Politrukki (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, as per Neutrality. This could either go under "Refugees and immigrants," or we could create a "controversies" section including this latest flap, the voter fraud claims, and any other future brouhahas that pop up. GABgab 15:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Bowling Green Massacre, or Sweden-bashing.--MugaSofer (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Has significant coverage. Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - very significant coverage, from many angles. Manxruler (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands is a mere 215 or so words of content. If there's "significant coverage, from many angles" our editors have missed it. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is often the case. I suspect language difficulties could play a role, too. Manxruler (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All that American spelling!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I was referring to an apparent lack of knowledge of the Swedish language. I note that all the cited sources are in English. Manxruler (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency or Bowling Green massacre. Or simply delete it. Not significant enough for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete to Immigration to Sweden, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Fox News, Sweden-bashing or whatever article you prefer. Or just totally delete it. We can't make an article every time the administration speaks. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT apply.LM2000 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Trump is right about Sweden, also, this article is very poor, there is no reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.196.19 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait then merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is a good guideline, but regardless of notability, the "last night in Sweden" and campaign articles appear highly duplicative at this point. Let's wait to see if the campaign article survives its concurrent AfD discussion, then merge, so that editor efforts aren't spread out over two similar articles. With an open mind to possibly splitting "last night in Sweden" back out in the future, if either topic is developed to the point that a split would do more good than harm, and if WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is happening. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. This was a silly gaff that doesn't merit a separate article. I agree with others who say the article should be merged, but I agree with Matt that the target would be Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020 (which I expect to survive AFD), as it was at President Trump's first 2020 campaign rally. Anyway, if the consensus is to merge, we can discuss the specifics later. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2017 (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.