Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Force One


 * 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 merge to List of things named after Donald Trump. Opinion is more or less evenly split between delete, merge, and keep, more heavily weighted on the delete side. The merge seems like a reasonable middle ground.

On a personal note, it's a silly article. Nobody but a hard-core plane geek cares what kind of engines it has or where it was assembled. But, whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump Force One

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's "coverage", but as an article subject, completely non-notable. Content can be replicated into the article on Donald Trump. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, also say no to causing trouble Unfortunately, the nominator of the AFD is in a heated argument with me so this should be speedily closed and reopened only if another editor submits it. Keep because it has notable coverage as the PRIMARY topic of several articles, not just a passing reference. Most private planes do NOT have coverage but this one is very special and does meet WP guidelines. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Include in article on Trump. VanEman (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Article subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable resources, and thus meets WP:GNG. As per Whiskeynouth, the timing of this AFD is a bit suspect. Nominator should take care to follow WP:BEFORE. I feel the nomination should either be withdrawn or closed as speedy keep. AFD is no place to start drama because one may be in a dispute with another editor. Please let us judge articles on their own merit.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss articles and edits, not editors. When one chooses the opposite, that's when drama starts.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  12:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Unfortunately, per WP:AfD guidelines, an AfD nom cannot be withdrawn once a Delete !vote has been cast, which cast above your withdrawal request. Cheers!   17:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Detailed coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources is available to satisfy the the general notability guideline as well as Notability (aircraft). --Sam Sailor Talk! 14:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Question I really don't understand this article and agree withthat it could be replicated into the article on Donald Trump without any controversy, so can can anyone explain exactly why it deserves its own article? Particularly confusing, to me at least, is if this article is making a comparison to Air Force One that is a call sign, not any particular plane. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong, replicating it to the Donald Trump article would create a firestorm because he is running for President. It would be considered so different from his biography that it would be considered pointed to add. Try adding the cars that Hillary drove to her article and it will be speedily deleted from the article. No, don't mix politics and Wikipedia. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you so much for your expansive, and illuminating, answer as I most certainly didn’t think of the political ramifications regarding this article. Picomtn (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure where I've expressed my opinion on this matter. Can you please provide a link? --Eleassar my talk 18:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Sorry about that, I mixed you up with the nominator for deletion of this article while I was at the same time talking to you about another one. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the Daily Mail source (as painful as it is, it satisfies GNG). I would discount sources that are newer than a year or so as WP:INHERITED coverage of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, but that does not empty the reference section. Not much opposition to a merge and redirect to Donald Trump, but the target article is one of those from the "permanently too long" category. Standalone notability + no good way to merge = article. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per below, there is however a potential merge target at List of things named after Donald Trump. I still think keeping as standalone is better, but I am less sure now. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

*Keep. It's notable. And this appears to be a bad faith request. FHB7695 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC) (account has been blocked as a sockpuppet)
 * Keep – and expand with any solid references among all those references. The batch of references in the References section needs to be refactored to be inline, or they are nearly meaningless and at this point acting as a defacto bibliography. For the number of editors involved in this article, it is poorly written, and poorly constructed, but that is not grounds for deletion. Needs a good dose of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Cheers!  17:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. I agree that a merge would probably be better overall, but the Trump article itself is a monster. So this is a clear keep. Maybe look at it again once the election hubbub dies down? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but reconsider title merge into List of things named after Donald Trump - I didn't even know this article existed... : it seems "Trump Force One" was simply a whimsical name coined by the media that has been repeated. There seems to be little indication that Trump himself (or indeed anyone other than a dozen or so political journalists) is referring to the plane by this name. astro (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be a better title? That seems to me to be the WP:COMMONNAME for it, even if not the official name. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete' actually as I myself would've closed this as SNOW keep given the current AfD state but I will have to say Delete because none of this is actually suggesting solid and permanent independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Merge - Seriously, a plane owned by a millionaire warrants itself an article? No, it shouldn't, most likely it should be put onto Donald Trump's personal page. What doesn't make sense is that references 7-26 aren't anywhere in the article (which is the majority of references that apparently make this pass WP:GNG), in fact those references either poke fun at Trump, talk about his plane with no in depth coverage (or don't even talk about this plane), or are just photos of the plane. I suspect WP:NOT. Lastly, Mr. Trump has a fleet of aircraft at his possession, so what makes the Boeing 757 significantly more notable than the other fleet?  A dog 104  Talk to me 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We have a List of individual aircraft which includes quite a few privately owned or business planes. This is the single plane which Trump has been using to get around in this campaign cycle, not the rest of his "fleet" (which by the way consists of two helicopters and a tiny cessna-like thing). astro (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to his campaign he was using a private Cessna aircraft a lot (which is the one that was grounded recently) mostly in short term travel. When scanning the list also, most or all of the aircraft were either there because they were the first to do something or the first to break a record. The only aircraft that I could relate the Trump One to was The Starship; however that aircraft was the first Boeing 720 used for commercial use and then purchased by Led Zepplin for the use of other musicians, which is credible.  A dog 104  Talk to me 16:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * None claimed that notability is inherited from the owner. The fact that some or most of the sources are not GNG material is irrelevant, as long as some of them are (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). And while I hate the Daily Mail as much as every sensed person, this is detailed coverage from an independent and reliable source. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very true, however, doesn't it seem like a WP:FORK that could easily be incorporated into Donald Trump's article or even the Trump Shuttle since it replaced the aircraft used in that company? Sorry if I'm going off the rails here.  A dog 104  Talk to me 22:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete with all of the coverage of Trump that I have seen (and I have seen a lot - I am fascinated by this presidential campaign), the aircraft does not really feature; the coverage is along the lines of "he projects an image of being a man of the people but he gets around in a big-ass plane", or "he says his plane is bigger than Air Force One but it isn't". There is nothing remarkable about a tycoon having a large aircraft. The late Kerry Packer owned a Douglas DC-8; Rupert Murdoch had a Boeing BBJ for years and Reg Grundy owns a BBJ; John Travolta owns a Boeing 707; Roman Abramovich has a Boeing 767; and Larry Page and Sergey Brin share another one. Ted Cruz has been using an airliner during his campaign; Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have both been heavy users of private jets in their campaigns. YSSYguy (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just because it belongs to Trump does not mean it's notable. – Qpalzmmzlapq T C 02:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this New York Times article is unambiguously about the plane, pointing out and profiling "Trump Force One" specifically. While the plane seems odd and non-notable, we at Wikipedia don't judge notability, secondary sources do; we just report what they choose to cover. I don't think WP:RECENT applies as there has been attention to Trump's plane for almost as long as he's been running for president, nearly a year (as well as some coverage before). astro (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Recentism is an essay, not a guideline or a policy; as such, it shouldn't be given any significant weighting at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the significance of that is to my comment. astro (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Is it ACTUAALLY named Trump Force One?? or is that just media hype? A non-notable aircraft. Mention could be made on DT's page but no need for a full-blown article on a subject that has virtually no direct references!! WP:GNG, plus who the hell cares!!--Petebutt (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who cares what the "official" name is (if it even has one)? Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Move Perhaps it can be moved in an article where Donald Trump's notable assets are listed. Ralphw (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A fair plan. Not sure if that exists, but we do have List of things named after Donald Trump. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment at the moment, the "article" Trump Force One is basically a dictionary definition: "Trump Force One is a Boeing 757-2J4ER that is the personal aircraft of Donald Trump, powered by Rolls-Royce RB211-535E engines." A significant proportion of that sentence is padding, as is the rest of the "article" - why would anyone who isn't an aviation-fanboy care to know which airlines it flew with, or what kind of engines it has, or that it can't be tracked on the websites of Flightaware et al. (which is pretty common for corporate jets anyway - Greg Norman's plane can't be tracked, nor can Nike's, or News Corporation's, or John Travolta's, just to name four)? Does anyone think Wikipedia needs to document its interior fitout? At the risk of being howled down with OTHERSTUFF and so on, compare that with WP's coverage of another Boeing 757, Ed Force One, about which much more has been written than Trump's 757. YSSYguy (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of aviation fanboy articles, as you put it. Thousands of video game articles and TV episode articles. No, the criteria for keep or delete is WP:GNG, of which this passes. So it should be a keep. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As the article's creator, why do you think "Trump Force One is a Boeing 757-2J4ER that is the personal aircraft of Donald Trump" needs an entire article? YSSYguy (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. I have previously written that if people are mad that Wikipedia has a lot of wacky articles, like porn stars, high schools, TV episodes, etc. there should be a Wikipedia wide discussion on what we want WP to be, not picking on articles that clearly meet the notability guidelines. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have answered a different question; I didn't ask why WP could have an article, I asked why an entire article for what is essentially one sentence is necessary. Several merge targets have been suggested now, albeit one (Trump Shuttle, which was an airline) being unsuitable. YSSYguy (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which multiple merge targets? The only plausible one I see is List of things named after Donald Trump. (Donald Trump, for instance, is a bad idea) Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What, you think there is no room in the Donald Trump article for "Trump uses his own aircraft, a converted Boeing 757 airliner nicknamed Trump Force One by the media, while campaigning"? Even with the phrase "formerly owned by Paul Allen" included, it isn't much. YSSYguy (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the amount of stuff that could plausibly be put in the Donald Trump article vastly exceeds the reasonable volume we can use. Even if this particular stub is short, that is one thing among a zillion others. So the criteria is not really how short it is or will be, but whether it is better to include this or that (though the ratio of relevance to length may be a criterion). However: Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I think other parts are more easily split off or compressed more in the main article (e.g. the business venture, the run for president, etc.)
 * 2) We can try anyways, and split off later if the need arises.


 * My reasoning follows an argument I read at some other AfD that !voting merge should be accompanied by a notice at the target page's talk, to avoid potential "transplant rejection" (editors on the target page may be overwhelmingly against inclusion even if the AfD is supposed to represent community consensus). I notice that a mention has been made on the target TP, we will see what editors there will say, but I would assume that putting stuff in a controversial article is probable to generate discontent. When RfCs are flying around to choose the placement of a comma, you do not like outsiders casually tossing in a paragraph (even if it is not a contentious one).
 * If the proposal on the Donald Trump talk page is welcomed or at least not opposed, then I absolutely agree with a merge and redirect there. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to List of things named after Donald Trump. There may be plenty of coverage in multiple, independent sources, but I don't see any indication of substantial coverage.  If the article can be substantially expanded I'm willing to revise my opinion, but as it stands now I don't feel that enough can be said on the subject to warrant an entire separate page. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I and others will expand it as soon as the article gets taken off death row. Few people who are not crazy are going to spend the effort because their effort may be wasted if the article is deleted. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how it works. You should absolutely be expanding the article now, so that people can see it has a chance to be something more than it is.  That's the way you get people to change their minds.  It can be done; I've seen it done, many times.  -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ser Amantio di Nicolao speaks the truth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge and redirect to a clean paragraph in Donald Trump. — JFG talk 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't delete and redirect as this is impossible, so am assuming you mean Merge and Delete. We shouldn't do that either though for attribution reasons. AIR corn (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: I mean to merge a couple paragraphs about the plane into the Donald Trump page, as proposed here by, then redirect Trump Force One to Donald Trump; this preserves the history. I only said "Delete" in my !vote because this is an AfD, whereas it should have been a proposed merge. — JFG talk 21:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now - This really sounds like some sort of media-hype piece from the title alone. Maybe we can reevaluate its notability when the election is over? Parsley Man (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to List of things named after Donald Trump per Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Just because we can write an article on something doesn't mean we should. It would fit nicely and easily into the list article as a pure copy/past merge into its own paragraph. AIR corn  (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a massive agreement to keep but enough debate that it should be kept. I understand that Trump, the person, is much hated but this is a Wikipedia article, not Trump. I also see, after planning to post a comment, that the original submitter, WV, has been banned for a month and has been banned many times before, like 10 times. Therefore, like others above, his comments should be struck.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thank you very much wiki (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ...says the User who appears to have taken a dislike to the nominator, presumably because s/he undid these edits at another AfD discussion; and who has done very little on WP other than argue at that AfD and make inappropriate comments on various Talk pages. YSSYguy (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we don't strike comments unless they are of CU-confirmed sockpuppets. GABHello! 14:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of things named after Donald Trump. While I am seeming a substantial amount of coverage, the page as it stands is simply too close to a bare dicdef, and I don't honestly know how much else could be added to get it past that point. GABHello! 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Is annoyingly, sourced and fits to the notability guidelines. Clubjustin (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Few reliable sources for this tabloid-style media-hyped article. No substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourced and in keeping with the notability guidelines. Tom29739 [ talk ] 21:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete an article on a well known person's method of transportation? There are articles on yacht's but they're more about it being a fancy luxury item than its practical use. Something similar to this would be the Popemobile but it can't really be compared. How much attention would this plane be getting if it wasn't remotely involved with the US presidential election? Yes this was talked about in what can be considered WP:RS but there is literally so much more than that. Trump has probably been talked about more in the past year than everything related to him before this election combined. You can now find WP:RS about his hands. Please, let's not go that far. Wickypedoia (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - this Daily Mail source has been removed on the grounds of WP:BLPSOURCES, which is quite wrong IMO since BLP guidelines do not apply to a plane. The thing is that it is the best source in here, since it was published in 2011, way before the 2016 presidential campaign. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with both and that this article should be merged with the existing article List of things named after Donald Trump. I, also, believe that  wanting to include it on the main Trump page can be accomplished by putting a link to it under the "See also" section that accomplishes this, and which I've begun a talk page discussion about you can read and comment on here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2016 (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.