Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracity of statements by 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 keep. WP:SNOW. I'd say that the previous close was partially justified by WP:NOTBURO. (non-admin closure) w umbolo   ^^^  21:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an WP:ATTACK page. An attack page is "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" No comparable page exists not only for any other president, but any other person in history. The page implies that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history and contains exclusively negative information about him. Rusf10 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – very relevant and notable topic. Just because it contains information you don't like doesn't mean it meets the attack page criteria. Bradv 🍁  06:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename Lack of veracity of claims made by Donald Trump or the more succinct Donald Trump's lies (that already exists as a redirect to this article?). PolitiFact has a list of All False statements involving Donald Trump. The Toronto Star has something similar, while the Washington Post restricted itself to just the first 100 days of his administration. No other president or anybody else I can think of off the top of my head has had such a tenuous connection to the truth in their public utterances. So yes, he's at the very least in the running for biggest (most prolific and most incompetently transparent) liar in history. The guy lights his own pants on fire with a flamethrower daily and repeatedly. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets GNG by a mile. Naming discussion can be had on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man arguement. I never raised a notability issue, it's an attack page.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. This is a page about a notable topic which might reflect negatively upon its subject but does not serve no purpose but to do so. Donald Trump has cultivated a political style of using misinformation excessively to the point that reliable sources have focused on the uniqueness of this approach. Having an article describing this style of politics is not an attack on the person any more than for example McCarthyism is an attack page against Sen. McCarthy. Regards So  Why  19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The (lack of) veracity of statements by Donald Trump is a notable topic in itself with many reliable sources noting that the amount of untruthful statements are unparalleled. If reliable sources treat the very fact that a president habitually makes false statements as a notable topic itself (and not just as something all politicians do), similar articles can be created for these presidents. If the problem is the name, it can be discussed on the talk page. But if your only argument is no other such page exists, it's a weak one. After all, just because something is unique does not mean it's not a notable topic. Regards So  Why  08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This ought to be a snow keep, but we'll see. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Trump's habitual lying is extensively covered in sources around the world. More than 9,000 have been document just during his presidency. The article is not an attack page. The reason "no comparable page exists not only for any other president" is that no other president has lied so often and so clumsily. - MrX 🖋 10:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems an awful lot like a WP:POVFORK. For example, Tony Schwartz is a journalist who ghostwrote Trump: The Art of the Deal. In July 2016, Schwartz was interviewed by Jane Mayer for two articles in The New Yorker. In them he described Trump, who was running for president at the time, highly unfavorably, and described how he came to regret writing The Art of the Deal. Is it really necessary to tell us how Shwartz feels about Trump? This quote is half the section labeled In The Art of the Deal. If the results are to be keep, I highly suggest we place some sort of cleanup tag on it. It's sourced, yes, but the tone needs work. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 11:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Drowning in WP:GNG refs. Perfect topic to showcase how WP:PAG produces encyclopedic content in contested areas. Any issues regarding content (e.g. POV), can be solved within the article/talk page. Britishfinance (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Admin note: I have reverted an inappropriate non-admin "speedy keep" closure by an involved editor, per Deletion review/Log/2019 March 12. This does not prevent an admin from re-closing this discussion as "speedy keep" if they believe this is warranted; I take no position on this issue.  Sandstein   17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Sadly, describing reality an attack page does not make. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. LOL! I hate to mention the editor, and not just the content, but we're looking at a case of severe incompetence on display, or just plain POV deletionism. This is a frivolous AfD. We document what RS say here, and since they document (not just "allege) "that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history" (Rusf10), we are supposed to document what they say. If Rusf10 doesn't get that, they should be topic banned from American politics, because they consistently take the side opposite RS on all things Trump. That's disruptive and incompetent. Check their history and you'll see. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Refactored to reduce the heat. The personal mention wasn't really necessary here. Sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is no denying the allegations, a portion of which may well be on target. I'm of the mind there may be some ambiguity in what opinion determines to be a lie vs exaggeration vs his repeating misinformation, but that's a job for editors at the article to work out by following BLP, NOR, NPOV and V. Atsme 📣 📧 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Plainly a notable topic with ample available references. It might not always be clear whether a particular untruth is a deliberate lie, a falsehood stated in ignorance, etc., but that's a matter where we summarize the reliable sources through normal day-to-day editing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Here is the discussion that the article was spawned from. Do you see any evidence that the page was created to attack anyone or for any other inappropriate reason? Neither do I. R2 (bleep) 19:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which also means the WP:NEGATIVESPIN part of ATTACK would apply anyway. Thanks for the link. Regards So  Why  19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. R2 (bleep) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a legitimate topic that has been covered by numerous reliable sources. There's no reason to delete it.  This seems like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2019 (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.