Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud


 * 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 speedy keep. It's WP:SNOWing on this one. Potential moves and disputes about the content of the article should be addressed using the usual processes. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Trump's "fraud" claims have been widely dismissed, we should not be lending credence to this conspiratorial nonsense; which is what this article does essentially. What Republican politicians think about WP:FRINGE nonsense should not explored in a Wikipedia article, doing so is ultimately WP:OR. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: my issue with the article is not that it is on a fringe topic, because WP:FRINGE does not mandate the deletion of articles, only placing them in context (as I attempted to do by adding a couple of sentences in the lead about Trump's claims being false). My issue is the false dichotomy of "Denounced" or "Supported", a big BLP issue as we are taking Republicans' comments out of context by pigeonholing them into such categories. For instance, we categorise Ben Sasse as "denouncing" Trump by saying: "If the president's legal team has real evidence, they need to present it immediately". No doubt Sasse chose these words carefully to avoid either supporting or denouncing Trump. Rather, I believe such a topic may be notable—it's not recentism to believe that a U.S. party's reaction to their president engaging in the fascist tactic of falsely denouncing a fair election result will be of historical importance—but it should absolutely not categorise comments in a binary way, instead presenting short quotes or representative samples of reactions from high-profile Republicans. The day-by-day summary section, while a bit unfocused, incomplete and a work in progress, is the better part of the article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, fair points, but if you have this article, someone could just as easily write a Democratic reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, or Rupert Murdoch's/Fox News' reaction to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud etc. aren't they just a notable in the above context? What i mean really is, are any such articles actually necessary? Personally, I don't think so Acousmana (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed the reason for focusing on the Republican Party on Talk:Republican reactions to Donald Trump%27s claims of 2020 election fraud. There are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia that begin with '[Adjective] reaction/response to [event]'; it's an established category to which this article is just another addition. All major U.S. quality news networks – pretty much all of which I have used for writing this article – have identified this split inside the GOP (often explicitly in the title of their articles or video reports) over whether their nominee's electoral fraud claims have any merit or not, and what the wider effect of making these repeated baseless claims is on society and the electoral democratic process. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it's not a "category" and you mention list articles predominately. Not convinced cataloging reactions of politicians to one or other thing is what we should be doing. Acousmana (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If 'cataloging reactions of politicians to one or other thing' is not 'what we should be doing', why do we have articles such as, say, International reaction to the 2008 Zimbabwean presidential election, which is exactly that, and which we have been doing on English Wikipedia for over a decade? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Zimbabwe example doesn't feature a "Denounced" or "Supported" listing such as you have introduced. Acousmana (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Sorry if I've not been clear when I used the word 'category'; I didn't mean a category on Wikipedia, I meant a set of related items in general, in this case a set of statements made by members of a party about an event. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I didn't write this article in order to 'lend credence to this conspiratorial nonsense'; quite obviously that would violate WP:FRINGE. I'm not talking about the allegations themselves, I'm talking about the reactions of fellow Republican Party members towards the claims made by their 2020 presidential nominee. Moreover, the article says explicitly in many places that the expert consensus is that there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud and that Biden won the election, and almost all sources cited explicitly say that as well; I've selected all my sources very carefully and I deleted any unreliable sources such as Twitter, Fox News and NY Post. This article is about whether Republican Party members go along or do not go along with Trump's claims, and whether he should concede defeat or not. Bilorv has a point that it may sometimes be difficult to put some people in one camp or the other; MitchMcConnell was removed from supporters and Melania Trump and Jared Kushner from denouncers for that reason, because their positions are more nuanced, and I have explained them in the Background section. Nevertheless, I maintain that there are two pretty distinguishable camps inside the GOP right now, as quality news agencies have demonstrated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * but isn't the act of cataloging "reactions of fellow Republican Party members," and then framing it the way you have, essentially WP:OR? Acousmana (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because I'm not the one doing the framing, it's the U.S. major quality news networks (and some foreign such as The Guardian and BBC) who have framed this as a conflict inside the Republican Party about their presidential nominee's claims that is being fought out in the open. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * setting out a "false dichotomy of "Denounced" or "Supported"" (per Bilorv above) is very much you imposing a frame. Acousmana (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think there is a potentially a biased reason or a misunderstanding of original research for why this would be deleted. It is a very interesting topic which has been widely reported in the media. Plus it now includes all reactions (denounce and support). Definitely against deleting. Just Piping In (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * no bias, but there very clear WP:SYN issues (tons of Wikipedia have similar problem, someone picks a random topic, with a name of their choosing, no discussion on its merits or notability, they impose their own frame, and string a bunch of refs together, that's what Wikipedia is now, plenty of examples). Acousmana (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This article should be reframed as an article about Trump's allegations of voter fraud. Trump's allegations of voter fraud in the election is a notable topic. Even "fringe" topics or conspiracies can be notable if they have heavy media coverage. However, the listing of Republicans that support or oppose his claims is not notable and is more WP:OR or WP:SYN. Natg 19 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, if the "fraud" matter has to be covered in the encyclopedia, focusing on that rather than noting how one or other Republican politician reacted is a better idea. But what would the title be?Acousmana (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea, mostly for navigational reasons. As I said below, I think that merging it to more general articles or by expanding it with reactions from other groups would quickly make it Template:Very long. I suggest creating separate articles for other aspects of Trump's claims; this article is already quite substantial and I expect it to grow in the coming weeks. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What happens when the entire Republican party (certainly not inevitably) accepts the results in a couple months? This article would be reduced to "The Republican party abandoned Donald Trump after he falsely alleged fraud in the 2020 election". Dylanvt (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I for one agree with this view. Dylanvt (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or move with a broader scope. An article about "Donald Trump's challenge to the results of the 2020 United States Presidential election" (or something along those lines) would be appropriate. Such an article would naturally encompass reactions and responses by various parties, including the Biden camp, Republicans, courts, and media outlets. However, this article is framed too narrowly and, arguably, creates a non-neutral aspect by focusing only on Republican reactions. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This article will be notable for many years on how we determine the transfer of power. It does not 'lend credence to this conspiratorial nonsense' but rather preserves this story in our encyclopedia. We are not an opinion piece. The other merge suggestions make a very long article that will be hard to search.--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I've indicated on the talk page, it's fine for others to write an article about the fraud claims themselves, or about how Democrats, or foreign politicians, or election experts etc. have reacted / are reacting to the fraud claims. But if we all merge that together into one big article, it will likely soon get a Template:Very long. If 'Republican reactions' is somehow too specific, despite being a clearly established phenomenon in reliable sources, then I would like to know why we do have dozens of articles titled 'International/National/Domestic/Media reactions/responses to [event]' in Category:Reactions to 2010s events, why it's fine to have articles in the Category:Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic that start with the adjectives 'Medical', 'Military', 'Political' and 'Scientific and technical', and why we do have Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008, Democratic response to 2006 State of the Union address, List of Democrats who opposed the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, and List of former Trump administration officials who endorsed Joe Biden. Per WP:OTHER, we should review the legitimacy of those articles as well then. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is actually a very interesting topic and one that is definitely notable. Keeping a record of what the Republicans’ reaction to this election was is not a bad idea, since a fraction of the party members have supported Trump. But I would suggest expanding it to include reactions by Democrats, courts and election campaigns to make it neutral. That way it would sound less like a conspiracy. I would have suggested merging it to the main article but it's perhaps too long to be included there as a subsection. Keivan.f  Talk 19:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing with the notability. In my response to Akrasia25 above, I said that I think that merging it to more general articles or by expanding it with reactions from other groups would quickly make it Template:Very long. I suggest creating separate articles for other aspects of Trump's claims; this article is already quite substantial and I expect it to grow in the coming weeks. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep As long as the article makes clear that Trump's claims are false, it should stay. While a conspiracy theory like this would usually be too fringe to have a wiki article, when it is being espoused by the president I believe it becomes notable enough. I also expect this situation to develop as inauguration day approaches. Colin dm (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Everywhere in the article, from the intro above to the sources below, it states that the expert consensus is that there is no evidence at all of large-scale electoral fraud. Only those Republicans who say they believe the claims are sometimes quoted or referred to as expressing an opinion; it is never presented as a fact. Only reliable sources have been used and will be used for this article; unreliable sources have been and will be removed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I oppose deletion as a US president claiming that a presidential election was essentially rigged is incredibly notable and reactions to such a claim are also incredibly notable (even if the claims of fraud are blatantly false). This article does need some clean-up though, since there are minor grammar, spelling, and formatting errors. Perhaps we should call on members of Wikipedia's political projects to assist in this effort. I also would not oppose expanding the article from "Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud" to "Reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud" so reactions of other notable national and international figures could be included. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite and expand into a broader article on Reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud (open to a better title). While I'm not in love with the idea of a 'reactions to reactions to X' article (which is what this ultimately is), in this case Trump's comments are so notable and attracted such comment that I agree reactions to them can justify a separate article. I don't think there's any need though to limit this article to Republican reactions, and that seems to have an implicit POV to it.  I think it would be best to expand this into an article describing all major reactions by notable figures to Trump's comments, positive and negative. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I encourage people to write other separate articles about Trump's fraud claims, I think the Republican aspect of it merits its own article instead of being subsumed in a larger article. Not only for navigational reasons to avoid making the article too long (Template:Very long), but because of how important it is to document how specifically Republicans react to the claims: it's their own presidential nominee. They collectively chose Trump to run for re-election, but some now strongly believe he has not been re-elected (which is true) and denounce his claims of electoral fraud which 'steals' his second term, call on him to respect the process and/or concede his loss, while some congratulate Biden/Harris on their victory; other Republicans however go along with his fraud claims. This is a unique historical situation for the Republican Party and therefore interesting and relevant to document in a separate article. Personally, I don't think adding the reactions of Democrats (or Independents) would be very interesting here; you can expect 99% of them to reject the fraud claims, denounce Trump for it and urge him to accept his loss; that's obvious coming from electoral opponents and wouldn't add much. A separate article on the claims themselves, however, and the reactions of electoral experts, scholars/scientists, media, commentators, business and interest groups who don't necessarily represent either party, is very well worth writing. But I'm not personally interested in writing that; my time and energy is limited, and I'm focused on making this a proper article, and I'm happy to leave it to other Wikipedians to write that one. Note also that there is already a separate article for International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election, and that's also already quite long. So there is no compelling reason to lump everything together in one big article if that makes it too long and complex, and if separate articles addressing the same subject from various relevant perspectives suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * length is not the issue - the word count is not high - size is, the formatting is bumping up the kB size, it doesn't know if it's a list or an article, additional content to broaden scope could be added easily. Acousmana (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not conspiracy or fringe theory. You have no authority to claim that. The article should be improved though. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% WP:FRINGE, Trump conspiracy nonsense writ large, as absurd as injecting bleach to cure coronavirus. Acousmana (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is clearly a notable topic and I don't think it should be deleted. It should instead be made very clear that the claims of fraud are unsubstantiated. We should fix the article, not delete it.Herbfur (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Move, so that the focus of the article is the event itself (claims of fraud or aftermath of election), rather than a particular group of people's response to that event. Dylanvt (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page is a useful resource. Perhaps it can use work, but deletion is not cleanup; it is clear the page does not "lend credence".--Calthinus (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the falsity of Trump's claims and the unprecedented backlash from members of his own party is significant and deserves attention, period. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 04:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to a more holistic title discussing the claims of election issues in general and not just Republican responses to it, as there is currently no such page. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Such as Claims of election fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election or the like. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep An important article, but it should, as mentioned above, be moved because the current title is inappropriate.--Sakiv (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are so many solid sources that hinge on the significance of the relatively binary position fellow party members to Trump must inevitably take. It would be far to monstrous in size were this into something that also encompassed other political party reactions. In response to the claim that this article becomes insignificant when party members are forced to accept the results of fraud investigations: I think that the initial reaction is still relevant because it could potentially become a record of a turning point in these people's careers. An article such as this will then become a valuable resource in rediscovering the sources that logged the early reactions preceding investigation and any potential evidence. Literalkoala (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on renaming: I disagree with your unilateral move to rename the article to "Republican reactions to Donald Trump's refusal to concede 2020 election" without reaching consensus with the rest of us here. Refusal to concede an election is an entirely different thing than claiming ahead of an election, during an election, and in the aftermath of an election that there is going to be, is or was electoral fraud. This article is about the Republican reactions to what their party's nominee has been claiming from the first moment that Trump alleged that there was going to be fraud on April 7, 2020, with a focus on his November 5 speech that fraud was going on as he was speaking. His refusal to concede after almost all major US news networks called the election on November 7 is a related but different issue. You have not obtained any consent from us here to rename the page as you have done. Many different titles have been suggested here and on the talk page, including:
 * 1) Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
 * 2) Reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election
 * 3) Donald Trump's challenge to the results of the 2020 United States Presidential election
 * 4) Reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
 * 5) Claims of election fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election


 * None of those comes even close to "Republican reactions to Donald Trump's refusal to concede 2020 election". Saying it is more 'neutral' by referring to this Guardian video is not sufficient. I think you really have to justify such a move and cannot do it unilaterally. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * refusal to concede is central to the invention of this concoction, using 'fraud' in the title allows suggestion of something that is incontestable - there is no fraud. The Guardian item provides an example of possible naming convention that avoids use of the word 'fraud.' The guy refusing to concede is what this is all about. Acousmana (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Acousmana, this article is about support / opposition for Trump's arguments of election fraud, which frames his argument of why he is refusing to concede. There is no indication in the article itself that his fraud claims are true or have any merit. Using the word "fraud" in the title does not mean that Wikipedia is advocating or suggesting that there is fraud. I think this is clear as this article is titled "claims of 2020 election fraud" and also clearly stated in the lede: "Trump falsely claimed to have won the election, and made many claims of widespread fraud arising from postal voting, despite substantial evidence to the contrary." Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the title does not mean that Wikipedia is advocating or suggesting that there is fraud," correct, but it's the thin edge of the wedge, how long before you have folk editing the page and adding whatever ludicrous examples of "fraud" the Orange One digs up accompanied by ridiculous talk page debates about the validity of said claims? Acousmana (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have to worry about that. Important articles like this are always on multiple Wikipedians' watchlists and vandalism and baseless claims will quickly be removed. I've already done that several times in the past several days and sometimes other Wikipedians were ahead of me in reverting baseless claims. This is not a justification for removing the word 'fraud' from the title of the article, when that is very much part of the subject of the article. I'm sorry if you don't like the word being used just because someone somewhere with an internet connection may not understand what it means in connection to the word 'claims', and try to add nonsense (that we can easily and quickly revert). And yet again, just like Nat9 and many others have pointed out (and I will repeat once again): Everywhere in the article, from the intro above to the sources below, it states that the expert consensus is that there is no evidence at all of large-scale electoral fraud. Only those Republicans who say they believe the claims are sometimes quoted or referred to as expressing an opinion; it is never presented as a fact. We cannot counter misinformation without talking about it, and Wikipedia is a good place to do so. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you all feel about this title instead? "Donald Trump's false accusations of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential elections"? --SansUT (talk &#124; contributions) 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, this has been the subject of plenty of coverage, see here: for just one example, and as such it passes WP:GNG. Perhaps the article should be reformatted as a list? Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it was originally a list, now it's a halfway house between list and article, based on the above responses, seems article is what people are leaning toward. Acousmana (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't accept OP's premise of we should not be lending credence to this conspiratorial nonsense; which is what this article does essentially. This article doesn't remotely do this; instead it's just demonstrating the reactions to Trump's claims. — Czello 12:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am a bit confuse that I could't find an article of Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud(assuming it's doesn't meet WP:N) but Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud is likely to sustain WP:N. Somebody help me understand why some incidence is not "notable" itself, but other people's reaction to that incidence, is however "notable".  xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any issue of the notability of the "fraud claims". They are definitely notable, but the article has just not been created yet, and the creator of this article instead framed his article as a "responses" article. We could split out some of the "background" information from this article to that article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly support Natg 19's proposal. I've got my hands full on updating this article. While designing and writing this article, I expected other Wikipedians to write a separate article about the fraud claims themselves, with fact-check commentary from election experts why they are not true. I don't like it how some people appear to try and bend this article to suit that purpose. This article, separately, is notable enough on its own, namely Republicans' political attitudes to their own party's nominee's claims. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment If this afd is closed as keep, I think the next step is to discuss merging this page with Stop the Steal under the name I proposed above, Claims of election fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election. Such an article would clearly be and remain notable and discuss all sides of the issue. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose merging Stop the Steal with this article. Stop the Steal is a citizens/voters movement that has little to do with the Republican Party's internal dynamics, especially its prominent leaders, many of whom strongly disagree with Trump and criticize him publicly, while Stop the Steal is 100% supportive of Trump. No, these are two very distinct phenomena that should not be merged. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - While the name does feel a little awkward, the sources do seem to indicate that the topic of republican reaction to these claims is notable. - Aoidh (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename Based on the above discussion, there clearly is not a consensus to delete. Despite that, this is one of the clunkiest titles I've come across. When the page is kept, it must be renamed, preferably to something that is not paragraph-length. KidAd   talk  18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Renaming it might be a good idea, but I've no idea as to what. This is an important and notable topic and is something that the future of the entire planet might hinge on. There are plenty of articles where disaster nearly came but was avoided. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - 70% of Republicans say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair, a stark rise from the 35% of GOP voters who held similar beliefs before the election (in other words this is far from being fringe, a significant majority of GOP voters believe this...and probably will be waging war against Biden/Harris for the next four years. Yodabyte (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * fringe belief, doesn't matter how many believe it, most are muppets who get their info from compromised news sources, Facebook forums, and Stormfront, any wonder a Qanon book is an Amazon bestseller Acousmana (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is the kind of s**t that makes a mockery out of NOTNEWS. We could make a million "...reactions to ..." and split it off from every single main article, thereby elevating the "reaction" to the level of the originary event. It's like non-personalities making response videos on YouTube or Instagram. No, this is not an important and notable topic. There are all kinds of things that matter here, and a lot of them may, in the long run, matter in an encyclopedic fashion, but a catalog of (ever-changing) "reactions" is not one of them. "But it's verified!" Yeah, and so is everything else. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 13 November 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.