Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Person, woman, man, camera, TV


 * 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 no consensus. Some of the "keep" opinions are unpersuasive. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not rely on the "historians of the future", but on those of the past or present. The "keep" side's references to GNG are a much stronger argument - like everything related to Donald Trump, this has plenty of media coverage. To this, the "delete" side replies that not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, and that the lasting significance of this particular presidential pronouncement remains to be seen. That's also a valid argument, but perhaps no less speculative. Clearly, for now, there's no consensus here about whether to cover this piece of information in a separate article or in the context of one of the many other articles about Trump.  Sandstein  09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Person, woman, man, camera, TV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Sure, a lot of sources are talking about it right now, because its in the news cycle. But does this phrase have lasting notability? At the moment, it doesn't appear as such. If we imagine it to be a WP:NEOLOGISM, then it definitely doesn't meet our standards. While deletion is not cleanup, I also note that this article is little more than "he said it. Oh and you can buy t-shirts that say it". Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTTRIVIA. Sundayclose (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG; historians of the future will thank us for documenting odd things like this - cf. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We follow what the historians say, not the other way around. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons as Sundayclose. Trivialist (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reasons as Tagishsimon. -- Gohnarch░ 20:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Their vote has had a reply to it now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reasons as Tagishsimon and Gohnarch. This phrase may very well be the next Covfefe moment in this administration, and that typo received just as much as attention as this. The phrase has already gained its own Know Your Meme page --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both those votes have now had a reply. If something may become something else we can wait until then or save in the draft space. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a nothing thing. At most, either move it to draft to see if longer-standing notability develops (which is unlikely, given the fickleness of the modern news cycle), or find somewhere to merge in a line about it. BD2412  T 21:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per extensive coverage in relevant media. - DVdm (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's received extensive coverage, and coverage about the coverage. It will probably remain relevant (at least comedically) through Election Day. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because this is going to be relevant for years to come. It's a part of history even if some people find it unflattering. -- Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or rename - The words themselves are not a unique phrase (and is not equvilant to Covfefe). Its not even a campaign slogan ("lock her up"). It's just a list of words that may or may not be the actual words used by his doctor. Nevertheless, the core topic of DJTs mental fitness (which has far more references) does relate to existing pages and itself may meet WP standards. Option 1) merge into existing page (either Donald Trump or Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Option 2) rename to something like "Donald Trump and the 25th Ammendment". I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and WP:ROUTINE - you know the drill, Trump says something bizarre, media covers it... Wikipedia is not a tabloid. See also the lack of depth in the coverage itself  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  14:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've been out of the loop for a few days and did not understand several memes I was seeing—until I googled the phrase and found this article (which satisfactorily explains it). ―cobaltcigs 15:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a (phrase) dictionary, especially for terms of novel conception (i.e. neologisms). Being the quotable of the day (or two) does not make it notable. Coverage generated in such a fashion is routine, just like for any top news item on any given day. I doubt anyone will remember this in 10 years, although the general trend of Trump's mental capacities being questioned, and him bragging about his faculties, will be. The people who have found this article "useful" have only found it so because they are looking for the wrong things (news and dictionary) in Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons given in several of the "delete" contributions above are unpersuasive. WP:RECENT, and in particular its section WP:10YT, does not speak in favour of deleting articles. It's mostly not about creating or deleting articles but about avoiding undue focus on recent events in existing articles. Where it does mention deletion, it makes several points against it: "Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research."; "Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball."; " Proper perspective requires [...] the passage of time." Claiming that we already know that this currently highly notable phrase will not be notable in the future is not in line with these guidelines. Joriki (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Massive coverage in sources, relates to many important issues, and relevant to history.  Arguments that this is a neologism or news story are a stretch and unpersuasive to me.  To the extent that Donald Trump's presidency will be notable in the future, this is notable in the future. Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yeah, embarrassing and telling. But, not in an encyclopedia. WP:RECENTISM O3000 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes article creation criteria with massive coverage in RS. Trump always makes sure of that. -- Valjean (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to this quote's status as a reference point for the President's mental fitness and job performance during the election year. Beyond this substantive discourse, the phrase has become iconic and has been weaponized by all sides of the political aisle. Covfefe should be informative here - none of the "Delete" votes have thus far explained why this would be less notable - if anything, it broaches on more relevant questions about qualifications over social media use. 1Matt20 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. A total embarrassment. Note: possible canvassing. KidAd (💬💬) 01:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll need more evidence that is evidenced in your link to suggest canvasing. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I said possible canvasing. That particular user doesn't appear to have much of a following, but the tweet includes both a plea to save the page and a direct link to the deletion discussion. KidAd (💬💬) 01:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG; this incident is a part of history. It feeds into Trump's insecurity and his violence and vindictiveness, in the same  way that being called 'bunker boy' provoked the Battle of Lafayette Square.  The Lafayette Square fence signs have been assembled by the Smithsonian because they are a part of a running physical, media, and political battle space.  03:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:24F8:B68D:FA77:65E3 (talk)  — 2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:24F8:B68D:FA77:65E3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom's stated reasons, and a little whiff of WP:FART. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs)
 * So you agree that WP:FART applies to Trump? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete More dreck in our pages, per Fart, Not the News, and Trivia. Can't people tell trivia from whats encyclopedic anymore? Just because some nonsense is covered in news cycles does not mean it's encyclopedic. Not notable and passing, too.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 12:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as with "Covfefe", this (through current public coverage and possibly future information on the actual cognitive and mental state of the current POTUS) is something that's historically relevant, even if (or because) it might be considered self-disgracing by him. GarryG (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — GarryG (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * , we don't judge whether to keep an article based on possibly future information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer: Please consider the number of WP:SPA !votes. Sundayclose (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that many of the Delete arguments are based on WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:FART talks about tabloid-esque magazines like People and Us Weekly; it is not meant to negate coverage from CBS News, The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun and Rolling Stone. Stepping back from the "I find it funny/I think it's dreck" feelings, I think a key area of dispute is whether this will have lasting significance in the campaign over the next several months. I don't believe that that question is answerable right now; people are making predictions about news cycles that are yet to come. Given that, I think that the most sensible answer is to keep the article, and revisit the conversation in a few months. If it's deleted and turns out to be notable, then it would be hard to come back and recreate it with a Delete consensus on the books. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If it does not have significance yet then it can be saved in the draftspace. We should not base our decision based on unproven guesses. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not a good idea to respond to every comment that you disagree with. See WP:BLUDGEON. Your points have been made; you don't need to repeat yourself as much as you have. You can step back and let other editors look at the sources and arguments, and make their own decision. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Priceless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydnjo (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Per WP:RAPID, this nomination could have easily been left for a few weeks, there is coverage in reliable sources across multiple countries, and analysis of the reports and significance of the moment. WP:RECENT is an essay explainer and not a guideline or policy of Wikipedia . Whilst maybe there should have been a WP:DELAY, let's see how it develops for a few months as suggested by others. . PainProf (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENT is not an essay. It's an explanatory supplement to WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NO, meaning that it's an extension of those policies. Sundayclose (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, "This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." PainProf (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree that your statement that it is an essay is incorrect. Sundayclose (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reworded, though your comment was also incorrect... since it isn't a policy or guideline. PainProf (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. ALoopingIcon (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments from Sundayclose. --Mpen320 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2020 (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.