Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Links between Trump associates and Russian officials


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no reliable sources that publish similar lists, which is required to establish "Notability". While there are investigations into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials, as explained in the sources used, the topic is too broad and hence "Original research." Its effect is to attempt to prove that collusion exists by listing every contact Trump associates have had with Russian officials. When Trump organized the Miss Universe contest in Russia, all the organizers and contestants who traveled to Russia would have had their passports stamped by Russian officials upon entry, meeting the criteria of a link between a Trump associate and a Russian official. So the article violates "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion".

I anticipate that some editors will reply, "We are not advocating anything. We are putting out the facts and letting the readers decide for themselves." In that case it violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."

TFD (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is a fork from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. None of the material is new, and the organization and presentation of the material are not new. It is simply a couple of sections spun off from another article that had gotten too big. TFD seems to be objecting to a motivation he attributes to its creators, an "attempt to prove that collusion exists", which displays his political feelings but does not provide any policy-based reason to delete the article. Anyhow, if the article is determined to be an inappropriate subject, the material should simply be restored to the article it was spun off from, where it has been without objection for a long time. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is synthesis and/or original research. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stories about the Trump team's contacts with Russia have been ongoing, probably starting when Carter Page was fired last September. These contacts have had other real-life consequences, including the dismissal of Michael Flynn, and the recusal of Jeff Sessions from the investigation. It's unknown if these contacts were related to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or something else, so I agree with the recent forking. FallingGravity 04:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding "there are no reliable sources that publish similar lists": Actually there are many reliable sources publishing exactly such lists. USA Today, February; Wall Street Journal, March; The Guardian, March; US News, April; CNN, May. This is not original research or synthesis; rather, this exact subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources over a period of many months. The very definition of the General Notability Guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not the same. The U.S. News (actually an AP article) lists 5 "top and former aides have received unwanted attention."  It does not mention any Russian connections for the first two.  CNN lists Trump associates who are part of the "Trump-Russia saga," but that includes people who have not met officials or even Russians per se. None of these lists have the same criteria for inclusion or the same names.  You are leaving it to the editorial judgment of editors which turns it into advocacy rather than neutral editing.  That of course is allowed for sources, but not for editors, per "No original research."  As it stands, your criteria allow for the inclusion of Miss Universe organizers and contestants.  TFD (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic: "links between Trump associates and Russian officials"
 * San Francisco Chronicle: "links between Trump associates and Russian officials"
 * ABC News: "links between Trump associates and Russian officials"
 * So, yes, there are many reliable sources using the exact same phrase as the title of this article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you really don't think the subject is WP:NOTABLE, you should google "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials". Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly notable (do we really need to provide links?) and whilst it is fork it is needed to keep other articles to a manageable length.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the way this happened was unwise and uncollegial, it's a very notable subject and reliably sourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a valid spinoff from the very long main article. It's clearly a notable topic and has reliable sourcing. Any concerns about neutrality and sourcing should be taken up on the talk page, not AFD. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:SPINOFF. Notable topic in its own right. Per coverage in thousands of sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sagecandor. Ceosad (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think most attempted spin-off articles about Trump have been unjustified. But not this one:  There is specific coverage in the mainstream press not just about individual links, but actually constructing a list of links. The best of them, not yet mentioned above, which exactly covers the material here is:
 * "The Trump-Russia Nexus" May 11, 2017 in The New York Times  DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - There certainly exist lists in WP that are culled from multiple sources, e.g. List of Presidents of the United States. I don’t see how this is SYNTH as the article isn’t drawing conclusions based on multiple sources. IMO, this is certainly NOTABLE and RS. If it is deleted, warn me first so I can save it as I’ve been wondering about this very subject. Objective3000 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This looks like original research as well as an attack page to me. Moreover, since there is an ongoing investigation, nothing has been proven, so it looks like fake news derived from guilt by association. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloidy blog.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what fake news is. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we can say this is a keeper, can we have a close now?Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sources verbatim for "Trump-Russia links" at . Sagecandor (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. MelanieN and DGG and Sagecandor above have shown that reliable sources have indeed published similar lists, which undermines the reasoning for the nomination to begin with.  --Lockley (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the abundance of sources covering the subject. There is simply too much noteworthy information to cover in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.- MrX 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Despite my political views being right of center, I believe this is far more than notable enough to not be merged with Donald Trump-Russia dossier. Furthermore, if it gets proven false, it will still be notable due to all of the controversy. Jdcomix (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's sourced excellently. Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO it's not a WP:SNOW situation since there are multiple "delete" votes. The discussion has only been open 24 hours. It won't hurt to wait, there's no hurry. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with, no hurry. The longer it stays open, hopefully, the stronger the end outcome consensus would be. Sagecandor (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – The detailed list of contacts between Trump associates and Russians was drowning out the main article on Russian interference. Replacing them by a WP:SUMMARY was the right thing to do. (Full disclosure: I did it, with help from, and I proudly ate my trout.) — JFG talk 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This is the lead story on the news almost every day. Easily passes WP:GNG, no questions asked. Can we close this already and stop wasting everybody's time? Smartyllama (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- as with every major scandal invloving the US President, it should be in Wiki. Deleting it by nonobjective Trump supporters would be the equivalent of HRC supporters wanting to delete the email scandal entry or the Lewinsky scandal. Archway (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)  is currently topic-banned from American politics. Politrukki (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this focused on the article, not the motive of other editors.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not sure why there is a different article for this. It seems to me that they both cover the same topics, and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is a broader topic, so can cover more information there.  Seagull123  Φ  19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that article is not about issues unrelated to Russia's interference in the election. This is not just about the Russian interference, but a wider issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- a valid split at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because the topic has received extensive coverage and relevance within the context of the Russia investigations, but I'm still not sure this deserves its own article. It seems like it could easily be covered at both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (since most of these Trump associates were involved only or mostly at campaign level). Nevertheless, the article seems in a decent enough shape with room for improvement, but I'd suggest revisiting this nomination in some months. Maybe later this will be a good Merging candidate. κατάστασ  η  03:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A source that I haven't seen brought up here is The Washington Post's analysis of this subject. Though the WaPo uses "ties to" instead of "links between," it seems pretty clear that there are numerous reliable sources documenting the connections discussed in this article. Deletion based on WP:OR therefore does not make sense. RocioNadat 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate sub-page of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I am not sure how the nominator could describe this subject as non-notable and poorly sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I feel the need to pile on here. This subject is excellently sourced, widely internationally reported, and of public interest. Our job is to deliver the facts, and any doubt about the truthfulness of the allegations is not solved by us. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:05, 6 June 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.