Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//r/The Donald


 * 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 '''There is no consensus to do anything. A continuation of the merge discussion can happen I the article talk page if desired.'''. - GB fan 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

/r/The Donald

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The notable topics of Donald Trump, fake new and reddit are covered by numerous articles. This article replays non-encyclopedic discussion within the subreddit that would fail our reliable sources check and BLP policy. Though it's not the creators intent, this article is an end run around our WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. Reddit is not a reliable source and it is unencyclopedic to create an article in order to bring up information that fails our source-ability criteria. As an analogy, this would be realizing that the National Enquirer is not a reliable source to verify anything about Trump, fake news or the election so instead of using it as a source, Wikipedia creates an article about National Enquirers coverage of these topics. We already have well sourced articles on the real topics and we don't need back door inclusion of poorly sourced material. Subreddits are not notable in and of themselves when they are covering mainstream topics. Any other position opens the door to free-for-all policy violations. As example, there is numerous garbage in subreddit /r/KotakuInAction. The encyclopedic topics within that subreddit such as GamerGate are covered by articles with very strict BLP and WP:V. Creating an article on the subreddit, though, would open the door to many issues. Subreddits by themselves are not notable but their topic may be notable and the topic, not the subreddit, is what is encyclopedic. Speedy deletion this under A7, A10 and G10 along with WP:NOT was reverted so full AfD started. All the content that is encyclopedic exists elsewhere and the subreddit is no more importnt than a random blog sites. DHeyward (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, and I'm leaning towards speedy. Just because topics involved with this forum are elsewhere does not preclude this article existing. I'm unconcerned about this "opening the door". If the sources establish notability, that's enough.  Per WP:WEBCRIT The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.  A brief examination of the sources used in this article shows this sub-reddit meets that criteria.That man from Nantucket (talk)
 * Keep. In addition to being covered by multiple non-trivial published works I'm unsure of where the "opening the door" claim originates from as there are a couple subreddits that seem to have had their own pages for a while now. I don't believe the fact that it is a subreddit changes the notability or importance; whether it is a subreddit or a hypothetical "TrumpForums" isn't important as it has quite a bit of published coverage. Shimunogora (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete possibly speedy. How silly, an article on a subreddit when even the venerable and 10x more notable /b/ from 4chan does not warrant one? /r/The Donald is just a part of a larger message board, one where people talk, sometimes notoriously, about President Trump.  Notoriety for things said there does not make the "there" itself notable. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good point but I believe it has definitely crossed into the notability threshold after people such as Ann Coulter, Curt Shilling, Roger Stone, and Trump himself have hosted Q&A sessions on the messageboard. At this point it is practically the de facto online Trump discussion hub and according to its traffic statistics page it gathered nearly 5 million unique pageviews last month. Shimunogora (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow further discussion about whether to keep or merge.  Sandstein  10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge With Reddit I agree with ValarianB, the situation regarding this article is very similar to that of the /b/ board having an article. There is already a section of the Reddit page dedicated to notable subreddits, and the information contained here would probably be better suited there than on its own page. 1adog1 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Controversial Reddit communities. While there's enough sources to argue that this subreddit is notable, at least at present, it doesn't really need its own article when there's a perfectly good one to merge it into. Much of the content here is indeed duplicating information in Reddit. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Controversial Reddit communities. Notability is not inherited from Reddit, Donald Trump, Pizzagate or any other topic: WP:NWEB. I believe it is better to merge this with the Controversial Reddit communities to give a better context for the content, and to avoid overlap as Robofish pointed out above. WP:OVERLAP. Ceosad (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The_Donald is a massive community and their candidate won. There are reliable sources such as the NYT article already referenced.  Merging with Controversial Reddit communities smacks of political judgment, since in the USA's two party system the Hillary Clinton subreddit is similarly controversial to the other side (side note: the HRC subreddit is probably not notable, because it never achieved similar traffic, traction, or notability, and obviously because HRC lost).  Specific criticisms of reliance on original Reddit content should be resolved case by case and not used to justify a draconian deletion.  Wookian (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The_Donald meets Wikipedia's topic criteria of notability. The article content satisfies all the criteria of verifiability (i.e. it has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). A website which has been the sole subject of numerous NPOV, mainstream media news articles, including the paper of record, The New York Times, is obviously suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia.--FeralOink (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as The_Donald maintains notability apart from Reddit. /b/ is different from /r/the_donald due to /b/'s complete and absolute reliance on 4chan for its notability (e.g. "/b/, a board on 4chan has done xyz") where all actions conducted by /b/ could, in fact, fall under a general "4chan" umbrella as all actions of /b/ could be described as actions on 4chan without a traumatic loss of significance (meme from /b/ is approximately equal to meme from 4chan). However, /r/the_donald has a notability apart from the notability of Reddit, whereas it is an online forum hosted upon the site of Reddit, while being separable from Reddit. Other controversial subreddits do not have their own article due to their notability primarily coming from their relation to Reddit as a website. /r/shitredditsays, /r/beatingwomen, and /r/jailbait being prime examples of subreddits where an inherent part of their notability comes from them being a subforum on a website, that website being Reddit. /r/the_donald's notability comes from coverage of /r/the_donald in a manner that is independent of it being a part of Reddit, as it is (one of) the primary online discussion forums for Trump supporters. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE big time. Reddit is not notable at all, anyone with a Reddit account can post on any sub-reddit with no fact checking  (except in cases of AMA ). Otherwise nothing is subjected to editorial scrutiny.  We wouldn't accept a twitter feed called #The_Donald  for the same reason on Wikipedia. Delete and  Kill with fire ]   Kosh Vorlon '''  20:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Cards84664 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge With Reddit It is just a sub forum. It should be the main page with links to Donny and Pissagate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not independently notable enough (compared to /b/ as others have noted). Nominator raises good points. A merge to Reddit would be acceptable too  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with a possible merger to Presidential campaign of Donald Trump or some article where expressions of support for him and his policies in social media can be explored in a more broad context. The sub-reddit itself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article (under a different name) was previously nominated for deletion. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by User:That man from Nantucket. I participated in the previous AFD, and I'll just quote myself here:
 * "The article already has two sources: "How r/the_donald Became a Melting Pot of Frustration and Hate" (Vice) and "Donald Trump to Drop In on Reddit, Where He's Already a Phenomenon" (NBC). In addition to that, I've found the following:
 * "Active Revolt Against Reddit’s CEO" (Vice) - This is definitely focused on the subreddit itself, not Trump.
 * "Donald Trump to host Reddit AMA" (CNN) - Brief mention
 * "From the media to moon landings: Trump takes questions in Reddit AMA" (The Guardian) - About the AMA, but gets into some details of the workings of the subreddit.
 * "Welcome to the Bizarro World of Trump Supporters on Reddit" (Wired) - Totally focused on the subreddit.
 * "Some Donald Trump Supporters Are Now Calling Him ‘God Emperor’" (The Huffington Post) - Reporting on events in the subreddit, with some history.
 * So that's seven sources total, four of which are detailed profiles of the subreddit. That's enough to warrant inclusion."
 * I see that since then, a lot of additional sources have been added. Right off the bat when looking at the references section, a huge profile in the New York Times seems like plenty to show independent notability. There's also the Washington Post article talking about the controversy with the Reddit CEO getting into it with the subreddit, and that goes into a good amount of detail too. I'm really scratching my head at how people don't see this easily passing WP:GNG, now more than before even. We document notable topics even if they're distasteful. —Torchiest talkedits 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Donald has been covered in numerous reliable sources and I feel that the page is of a sufficient size to warrant keeping it where it's at, rather than merging it somewhere else. The page has increased in size since the deletion was proposed two weeks ago, and it could potentially continue to grow over the next four to eight years. And deleting it entirely would certainly not be beneficial to people who come here to read about The Donald. AJFU  05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - Since we seem to have a dedicated article for controversial subreddits, this should definitely belong there. A single subreddit doesn't need a whole article, and if other controversial subreddits don't have an article, this shouldn't either. --  numbermaniac  ( talk ) 11:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY KEEP - such a wealth of significant mentions of this subreddit in reliable sources! fantastic sources, the best!  Pure gold!  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Controversial Reddit communities. I agree with what has been said above and in my understanding, the topic should be merged. To echo what said above, notability is not inherited. There are many sub-communities that have received way more independent coverage as a community than this one - /b/ of 4chan for example - and those topics have always been a part of a relevant parent article. The community in question has received most of the coverage because it was a subreddit on the popular site Reddit and that it was about Donald Trump - notability is not inherited. Apart from that, a separate article will cause repetition of facts since most of the major facts would be covered in the main article and that the independent one in question would not have enough separately notable facts to warrant a separate article. The subreddit has received coverage mainly because it is a part of Reddit and about a controversial figure. There already exists parent article for topics like this, with which the content can be and should be merged.   Ya  sh  !   09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is notability inherited here? The sources used are all about the sub, not Reddit, not Trump. Just saying notability is inherited doesn't make it so.  Speculation about why sources chose to write about this is in the end, just speculation.  We go where the sources take us.That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow further discussion about whether to keep or merge. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - To all those who say MERGE with the Controversial Reddit communities article, please be aware that the content of that article focuses on sub-reddits such as 1) jailbait; 2) CreepShots; 3) Gawker exposé; 3) beatingwomen; 4) TheFappening; and 5) fatpeoplehate. Those are disreputable or at the very least, self-parodying topics. They are in marked contrast to a grass-roots movement that served as a focal point of support that led to the election of the 45th President of the United States of America and the next leader of the free world. This article should NOT be stuffed under "TheFappening", as that is a ridiculous assessment of importance, unless one has a biased, partisan viewpoint against President-Elect Donald Trump. Yes, I am a member of WikiProject Donald Trump, but I am also an American, Jewish female, and I want to see my nation's president, including the online advocacy networks who supported him, represented in Wikipedia as the encyclopedia-worthy content that they are.--FeralOink (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling other editors motivations into question is all the rage on Wikipedia. I like to let policy be my beacon instead of my political beliefs. From my view, WP: WEBCRIT is the most authoritative guideline for determine notability in this instance. The guideline states in part The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself which is clearly true in this case. Though this being Wikipedia, don't color me surprised when a lazy admin just counts the votes.  And for the record I'm not a fan of Mr. Trump.  Thats about all I can say without risking a block for violating BLP policies.That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has been significantly improved since this AfD began, and there are plenty of sources which discuss exactly this topic. Just because reddit itself is not a reliable source has no influence on whether it is a notable topic. There are plenty of mainstream media articles which discuss this, and therefore it meets Wikipedia's verifiablity standard. Bradv  19:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep topic passes the notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Reddit. Cledrupide (talk) 01:00, 1 January 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.