Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump


 * 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. There's good consensus here against keeping this as a stand-alone article. Digging deeper, it's a little less clear about delete vs merge, but I'm not too worried about that particular call. There's so many articles, and so much being written about this general subject, that it's hard to imagine that anything which might have been merged won't surface again on its own through normal editing of other articles.

As with most politically charged topics, it's hard to tease apart the policy based comments from the more emotional ones (i.e. WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT). There's certainly no shortage of WP:RS; most of the arguments are about whether this is a WP:POV fork and/or WP:TOOSOON. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a pure WP:POVFORK of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Dismissal of James Comey and Comey memos. Last thing we need is yet another article on these matters… All the contents are covered in the aforementioned articles, with appropriate context. — JFG talk 19:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Trump's interference in these ongoing elections is well documented, noted by many RS's and one of the most important historically things happening today. No question this should be a keep.Casprings (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Also the title is inappropriate, unless it is determined that DT did actually interfere in the investigation. ~Awilley (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC) The move from Donald Trump's Attempted Russian Investigation Interference to Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump has made some of my concerns moot. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the same could be said of the title "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections", since Reuters and the BBC still treat that "interference" as an allegation and not fact, as do the German, French and Spanish wikis. -Darouet (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close the page title is biased and it should be renamed, but that doesn't need to be addressed here. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is a part of that subject, and while there's plenty of opinion and analysis floating around, they're all pretty much sortable into "Trump's guilty" and "Trump's not guilty". That's not enough material for a standalone article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for reasons already given above, or delete per reasons given below.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC) edited 01:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect specifically here: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Lots of duplicate info that can be consolidated. Timtempleton (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Looks like a POVFORK, terrible title too, surprised it hasn't been deleted on those grounds alone.  Arkon (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Changed to stronger, below. Satisfies WP:GNG on its own. Example: Post-ABC Poll: Most say Trump is interfering with Russia investigations. Sagecandor (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't merge or redirect, because the title assumes facts not in evidence, as the lawyers say. IMO it's way too early for an article like this. Maybe someday if the Special Counsel starts making noise about it. But the information we have right now is perfectly able to be (and already is) covered in a few paragraphs in the "White House attempts to influence the investigation" section in the "Russian interference" article. Also, I don't think we have solid enough sourcing for a bald assertion in Wikipedia's voice that he interfered. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It's an obvious POV fork and has a POV title.  While "Dismissal of James Comey" covers the possible reasons for the his dismissal, this article assumes it was done to stop the Russia investigation.  TFD (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete AND Merge ALL the content into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Donald Trump because it is about Donald Trump's alleged cover-up/ reactions to investigations of the accusations of collusion by him and his campaign members. It's important to parse this matter properly. This does not relate to whether Trump and Co. actually colluded with Russia. It relates to whether Trump and Co. are impeding the investigation. That is a solid fact. He has done (1) nothing to help the investigation, and (2) everything to deny and impede it, and those two aspects can be documented with myriad RS. There can be no doubt that this is a very notable subject. It is currently an alleged cover-up. Some see very strong evidence for a cover-up, and others are doubtful if that term is proper, but there is plenty of interference occurring. As that section grows, it can be split off into a sub-article with an appropriate title. The current title is too strong and inflammatory, but that will likely change fairly soon. When that happens, the title can be changed. Right now I'd suggest Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It may also be appropriate to merge the content to here: Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections BTW, "POV title" is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to tweak the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails simplest of WP standards. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , it'd be helpful if you mentioned specifically which standard(s) you're thinking of--it's not obvious to me what would be the "simplest". Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you would agree a duplicate article violates the simplest of WP standards... which is what I interpret this article to be.Cllgbksr (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually don't agree a duplicate article is the simplest WP standard! Can be quite complex to decide when a fork, which typically duplicates at least some material, is warranted. But thanks for clarifying that your delete vote is based on that issue. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

*Keep rename to Donald Trump's Obstruction of JusticeMishigas (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 10:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per MelanieN. Bad title and premature, POV article. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The info here can be easily placed in Comey memos and Dismissal of James Comey, and even at efforts to impeach Donald Trump with regards to the obstruction of justice accusations. This really doesn't need its own article. κατάστασ  η  06:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not policy compliant, pertinent info in other articles already.LM2000 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, this is just a POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; duplication of existing articles. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Delete and rename "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." The BBC and Reuters now ( and always have referred to interference as an allegation, not fact, and this is how the French, German, and Spanish wikis treat the subject as well . -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedily delete The title "Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference" implies that he did it with certainty and that violates WP:BLPCRIME. Delete as quickly as possible. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 18:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; Right now it is only alleged that Trump tried to obstruct justice and interfere in the investigation, and while his opponents are doing everything they can to incriminate him, underneath the rhetoric these only remain to be unproven allegations and Wikipedia is not the place for unproven allegations to be reported as fact. I'm especially concerned that Wikipedia's neutrality could be compromised and lead to it being branded as partisan if it seems to be too hostile to President Trump. Need to tread carefully here. Reattacollector (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So let's be hostile but not "too hostile"?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Diaz brings up an excellent point -- WP:BLPCRIME.  The material belongs in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and is largely already there.  --Lockley (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Agreed with Diaz here, completely violates WP:NPOV, title implies he's guilty when he isn't even under investigation yet. All of this is being covered in other articles. Jdcomix (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's public record and non-disputed that he interfered in the investigation. Obstruction of justice is what is in question.Casprings (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to be careful how you phrase that. Per the article, he has attempted to interfere. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, you actually touch on a solution. The title is problematic, and the solution is not to delete, but to tweak the title. We really don't need to distinguish between whether Trump attempts to interfere/impede with the investigation (that's pretty clear) and whether he succeeds in doing so. So far, every refusal to provide requested documentation, firing people, lying about meetings held, etc, has only created more of a cloud and increased the determination to push for a better investigation. It has not "succeeded" in stopping the investigation. On the contrary. Therefore the title should be something like Donald Trump's attempts to interfere in the Russia investigation. That subject should be developed better in another, main, article and then spun off into a sub-article like this one when it gets too weighty there. That's the proper procedure. Some editors, including myself, believe there is already enough material to possibly justify such a spin off, but it should start by literally overwhelming the existing article. That will demonstrate the need for a spin off and preclude another AfD. Therefore I !voted Delete AND Merge above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie whatever the current text of the article, is it really in dispute that he had "interference" in the investigation. Dismal of Comey is interference. It might not be obstruction of justice, but it seems clear that it isn't alleged.Casprings (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interference is not really a neutral word, and has BLP implications. Erring on the side of caution here is preferred. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If RS use non-neutral words, then we use them too. Keep in mind that NPOV does not refer to neutral content, but to editorial neutrality. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per BLP. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. and adjust the title for NPOV. But the article is not BLP. As long as we follow NPOV, he's a public figure.We just have to be fair about it. As for notability, can anyone honestly think   that this  is not of historic significance.?  I've opposed separate articles on details of his individual speeches. this is no detail. Eventually, we may want to combine a few articles.  DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Title is POV and must be fixed if this is kept. I suspect this forks something or another. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the fork: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge anything worthwhile to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice, per the Washington Post. I think this could and should be taken into account for this article. I would ask editors to look at this.Casprings (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/politics/mueller-trump-special-counsel-investigation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 * Per the open investigation, I have changed the name of the page.Casprings (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging user because I think this might change the logic of users: ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,Casprings (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I already said my position for retaining the article, above, but, wow. Sagecandor (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Comey testified under oath that the Russia investigation was "separate" from the Flynn investigation. And my understanding is that leakers now say Trump is under investigation regarding Flynn. So, I don't see how these new leaks should alter my opinion already given at the current AfD.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is actually a different topic. At present it does not justify an article because all we have today is a statement that Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice.  You would have to delete all sources from before today, since it would be original research to connect them with the investigation.  The best approach is Blow it up.  Mention it in an appropriate article and spin it off if sufficent coverage is made to warrant a separate article.  TFD (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything currently in the article is being mentioned by WP:RS in relation to this. It isn't a different subject. Its the same with the addition that we have WP:RS now stating that the events have caused an obstruction of justice case.Casprings (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It can't be, because when it was written, we did not know there was an investigation. We cannot ourselves build a case against Trump, then say he is being investigated because we do not know that they are seeing it the same way we are.  "Synthesis of published material" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  In this case, do not combine combine sources that do not mention the investigation and imply their content is part of the investigation.  TFD (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My !vote stands. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Obviously relevant, a major topic of the broader investigation that is significant enough and that has received and no doubt will continue to receive enough coverage in RS to merit a stand-alone article. The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and the Dismissal of James Comey are separate (but somewhat overlapping) topics; this is a criminal investigation against the president personally for a serious crime, with Donald Trump, not James Comey or anyone/anything else in focus. --Tataral (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post and also The New York Times. Sagecandor (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal alsoCasprings (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. NOTNEWS. Besides, this isn't a separate investigation, if I read the news correctly--the investigation is already there, and this is just another element in it. (And note that this article seems to pretend this is a separate investigation by way of synthesis.) Drmies (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - it's too late for anything speedy, but there still isn't a WP:SNOW chance this page will be deleted at this time. The new name is an improvement.  The current article is low-quality and should be merged into Dismissal of James Comey, but there's no point arguing for that either. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect somewhere, without prejudice to a future re-creation if developments warrant it (the trouble is that it could be merged in a number of possible spots). Certainly a plausible search term, so outright deletion would not be appropriate. Neutralitytalk 02:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Upon reconsideration, given (1) article improvements; and (2) some extraordinary, very unusual developments: "President Trump acknowledged publicly for the first time on Friday that he was under investigation in the expanding inquiry into Russian influence in the election, and he appeared to attack the integrity of the Justice Department official in charge of leading it.." (NYT). Neutralitytalk 15:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Still delete. At least this title isn't a BLP violation on its face, so a redirect from this title would be possible. But there is no justification to have a whole article at this point. based on reports that an investigation exists - and nothing else. Nowhere near enough for an article. Do we have an article on the investigation into Michael Flynn? No. Do we have an article on the investigation into Paul Manafort? No. There is far more information and confirmation on them than there is on this. BTW I believe the redirect created when you moved this should be deleted as a BLP violation. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per DGG and WP:GNG. The original title was awkward, but the subject is notable and too extensive for inclusion in the Russia election interference article. Recent reporting suggests that there will be lot of material to build the article from and that there is a strong possibility of lasting significance.- MrX 02:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see that this article has now been renamed "Obstruction of Justice Investigation of Donald Trump".  This seems misleading and premature.  The New York Times reported on June 14, 2017 about "the latest indication that he [Mueller] will investigate whether President Trump obstructed justice", but the Times said that there were as yet only hints about such an inquiry.  So I reiterate my support for deleting this article.  See Schmidt, Michael and Apuzzo, Matt.  "Mueller Seeks to Talk to Intelligence Officials, Hinting at Inquiry of Trump", New York Times (June 14, 2017).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The title describes exactly what is happening. In an article titled Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say The Washington Post writes "The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.". There are dozens of international sources from across the political spectrum that have covered this for the past four weeks. It's bigly.- MrX 11:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the New York Times has not verified what the Washington Post reported and various other news outlets repeated. Meanwhile, DOJ has issued an unusual warning not to trust the WaPo report.  Why is it appropriate for us to now buy into the WaPo report hook, line, and sinker?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When POTUS confirms in a statement, yes. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/875701471999864833 Casprings (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is not just based on one article in the Washington Post. The subject has been thoroughly covered for about the past four weeks. The DOJ warning is another detail that should be capture in this article, but in no way negates any of the reporting on the subject.- MrX 13:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Changed from slightly weaker, above. Per official statement from the President: National Public Radio, The Washington Post, The Sydney Morning Herald. Sagecandor (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The new "better" title sums up nicely why I voted (and remain voting) delete. He is not obscuring a "Justice investigation" he is accused of obstructing justice relating to an investigation. This is a badly written POV title for a badly written POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obstruction of justice is one unified term. Sagecandor (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Obstruction of justice investigation is awkward and odd wording. It is on the wrong order, and reads like Trump has launched an investigation into Obstruction of justice, For a start this obstruction is by Donny (assuming the accusation is true).Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is a problem, the article could be renamed Investigation of Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. --Tataral (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Obstruction of justice" is a commonly understood concept among native English speakers. Sources routinely use "Obstruction of justice investigation" and so should be per WP:COMMONNAME. We can consider changing it to Obstruction of justice prosecution of Donald Trump or Obstruction of justice by Donald Trump at the appropriate time.- MrX 13:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that phrase is, that is not what the page is called. Look at how those sources refer to this "Donald Trump under investigation for potential obstruction of justice" or "Stephen Colbert's Glee at Trump Obstruction of Justice". So no "Obstruction_of_justice_investigation_of_Donald_Trump" is not the common name "trumps obstruction" of justice is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Investigation of Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, as suggested by Tataral, is an accurate, NPOV, and better title. It avoids an actual accusation that he is doing it. That has to wait for a trial and conviction. When that happens, we can change it back to the current title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Cmt: Trump has acknowledged he is under active criminal investigation. --Tataral (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bud, not a reliable source!       (That's a joke, son, a joke...)  Carrite (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tataral, that's so much more a propos on your Facebook page. This is still part of an already documented, ongoing investigation. I wish y'all wouldn't have your laptops at hand while watching Fox or MSNBC. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I might've !voted merge/redirect earlier, but recent developments since the AFD was opened (both improvements to the page and real-world events), makes this a valid spinoff article, which meets WP:GNG and is above the routine levels precluded by WP:NOTNEWS. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge, or weak keep, due to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. The clearly biased title needs to be changed if kept. I would prefer Efforts to impeach Donald Trump as a target for merging, despite concerns about this article being a POV fork or a duplicate. Ceosad (talk) 21:40, 16 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.