Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-Trump feud


 * 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.  So Why  10:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Obama-Trump feud

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very short article exploring a series of spats between the former and current presidents of the United States, and created by a new user in the wake of the latest claims made by Donald Trump. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS–even the media has reported on the lack of reaction to the allegations, and we can't create an article about every single thing that Trump says or does. This topic could be suitably covered in other articles. This is Paul (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This article was created after the latest accusation by Mr. Trump because this feud has been going on for over 6 years. I cannot possibly write all of them out myself but I point major benchmarks out. This tense relationship is one of the most well-known conflicts in the world.HigginsWashtenaw (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if you think this subject deserves an article of its own, the onus is on you to demonstrate its importance. That means taking the time to do the research; it's not good enough to say "I cannot possibly write all of them out myself". At present all of these incidents are mentioned elsewhere. Bringing them together under one roof requires something a bit more substantial than you've got. This is Paul (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A drama magnet and WP:SYNTH that cobbles together a) a series of apparently baseless claims that Trump has made about Obama over the years and b) the fact that during the presidential campaign Obama publicly remarked that he believed Trump to be unsuited for the job of president into c) this made-up "feud." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, the opening statement is utterly unsupported, and it's a typical example of SYNTH (imagine an "Obama-Bush feud" article) that tosses together a handful of different quotes and controversies. This really doesn't contribute anything that isn't covered in other articles - Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, etc. GABgab 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Unenclyopedic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "keep" at least until we can merge it it into another article? It's not just new but a long term annoyance worth documenting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:21C9:6300:941A:369C:19D4:8E1A (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Lepricavark (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's probably enough material to start an article about the phone-tap allegations, as that doesn't seem to be going away, and may or may not have repercussions. But an Obama-Trump feud article is a non-starter. This is Paul (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear delete, WP:SYNTH nonsense. ansh 666 05:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I started a space for the Donald Trump wiretapping claim. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is just... no... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYN.LM2000 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SYNTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's really original research, sure some of the stuff can't be reliably backed up but the article didn't seem to me to be trying to present to this fact, merrily as the opinions that these two individuals were holding, and the fact that these individuals hold these opinions, is at least reliably documented, or maybe I misunderstand how the original reasearch thing works here?( how do I sign my queries/comments/votes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You sign by adding four tildes ~ after your comment. Please don't remove comments of other editors. Politrukki (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – I don't know why we can't just rework this article until it meets the standards of Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article fails WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS because it is a synthesis of original research and Wikipedia is not a paper source. An admin should consider closing this early per WP:SNOW. -  t u coxn \talk 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   12:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – consists of material combined together in a WP:SYNTH manner. Second WP:SNOW. Politrukki (talk) 10:26, 13 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.