Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Donald Trump on social media. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance shows opinions are all over the place. Some of them well grounded, and others not so. While consensus isn't immediately apparent, I will not a merge discussion taking place at the same time. I didn't look to heavily into that discussion but it appeared to be leaning towards a merge close. Likewise some users thought merging the article was the most appropriate action as well. The keep votes made convincing arguments that establish notility, while the delete made good arguments why despite being notable, it shouldn't be an article. It was clear to me that Covfefe requires a place somewhere on Wikipedia so it appeared the best solution to this problem is to merge it into the suggested article.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covfefe

[edit]
Covfefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Covfefe incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wow. Seriously? This is an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS. feminist 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. feminist 09:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly the UK's Independent, Daily Mail and Guardian, among many others, disagree. All have it on the splash screen/home page. Mashable and most other popular web magazines have also given it prominence. Against deletion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (then probably Merge to wherever it is we merge the meme-generating minor Trump incidents). Splash pages on newspaper websites is not an indication that something is not news, but as it's still only about 6 hours (all of them night in the US) since this happened it's far too early to know whether long-term this will merit a sentence or an article. The article creation was premature, but given that it was created this deletion nomination is also premature. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important, groundbreaking article. Will be useful to historians that want to trace the emergence of the second dark ages and Trump's reign of terror. Crucial historical document. This is not the place to pay partisan politics and cover up for Daddy, Trumpkins. 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've redirected Covfefe to Covfefe incident (presumably this hadn't happened as those deleting the former were unaware of the latter). That page being repeatedly recreated though still doesn't make this nomination any less premature. It is by definition impossible to tell whether

WP:NOTNEWS applies to something until there is either sufficient information about the subject to make it clear that there is more to it than a flash-in-the-pan news event or that there is no enduring coverage. How long that takes varies, but for something like this it's going to be about 36-48 hours at absolute minimum. Nominations before that time (on NOTNEWS or similar grounds) are just a waste of everybody's time (and sometimes WP:POINT violations, but I don't think that's true here). Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new account with no other contributions Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: The last point of WP:GNG reads: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not,..." in this case there seems to be a consensus that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand GNG. Many memes and gaffes have notable, lasting affects beyond initial incident, and thus have their own articles that have held up. I agree with the analysis in the link I included from CNN. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait/Keep for now: it's a developing phenomenon which may yet acquire greater notability than it has already. —ajf (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Internet phenomena, when covered by reputable sources such as the NY Times, CNN, and even the BBC the BBC, have established sufficient notability to get a project article. People are too quick to delete around here. At the very least it should be a redirect to something appropriate, as it will be a word people search for. ValarianB (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ValarianB, I believe you meant to link this article? The "BBC" in your comment is linking to this discussion page we're at. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks, too many tabs open! :) ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article easily meets the WP:GNG -- easily, no question. I've seen the GNG as cited as a policy more or less along the lines of "Does not meet GNG and so must deleted regardless of vote or other considerations". The GNG is not a policy, but you do see that. Well but what's sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. If the GNG is to be treated that strongly, then an article like that clearly meets it must be kept (if it doesn't violate other policy like WP:V or WP:BLP etc.) whether we want to or not. It's not a vote -- policy trumps. I don't treat the GNG as policy, but some people do. And if the closer does, he doesn't really have a choice here.
As a general good practice, I wish people would wait a couple months at least before nominating current events articles. Make a not and come back to it. For a couple reasons:
  • It's a lot harder to judge long term importance when you're right on top of the event; we have to guess. Give it a little time to see how it shakes out so we can make educated votes/comments.
  • To the extent the article is useful at all, it is most useful near to the event. That's not to say it won't be useful a year from now or ten years from now or thirty -- maybe it will, maybe not -- but even if it is, it is most useful now, to the general public. But (I think that) sending an article to AfD puts a __NOINDEX__ tag on, so it won't come up high in Google results, so the general public can't easily access the article. Could we have a little patience maybe? I wish people would not do this.
Because of all this, even if I didn't think the article was OK on the merits, I would be inclined to vote "Keep, don't do this now, renominate in a few months". Herostratus (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you just listed is all the reasons that this should have never existed, not reasons why it should exist. — Smuckola(talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Easily meets WP:GNG" is a good reason for an article not existing? Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copying over some stuff I wrote elsewhere... to to some degree this is an "other stuff exists" argument, so how you take it depends on whether you think these other articles should exist, or not. But here goes. Here's some more similar-type articles with pageviews (all are pageviews per day over the last 90 days):
These are reasonably good numbers. Whether this article will settle at numbers like this we can't know, but why not? None of our rules or practices mention pageviews, but IMO it's reasonable to look at those numbers and figure that the existence of the articles is a service to the public, and that that might matter. Whether it matters or not is matter of opinion.
But that's one article for George W. Bush, one for Clinton. etc. There may be a couple more, but not many. And unlike ever before, the current president generates something like this about every two weeks (see Trump orb etc.); it's quite a different situation (no judgement, just fact. Whether it's the media being silly or its something else doesn't matter. Cause of notability is not our concern.)
Let's see, every two weeks for four years -- that's 100 articles. Eight years, 200 articles. But lots of categories have 100-200 articles or more. But on the other hand, we have separate articles on all the moon landings, but if they were occurring every two weeks, would we still? Well actually we probably would if they were big news and got lots of coverage. It's just a fact that the current president generates "rabbit incident" type news at an extremely elevated rate, and this gets massive coverage.
If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off -- paragraph on page five, "Another train wreck". It's not happening here. We might think it's silly for this stuff to keep getting major coverage, but our job is to document what is notable, not what we think or wish should be notable. This is notable by our own standards as laid out at WP:GNG. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How you can compare the notability of the VP shooting someone else in a hunting accident vs a typo on a twitter post? The media has an obsession with reporting every single thing that Trump does - we should be better than that (see WP:FART). Mr Ernie (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the shooter warning the media Trump's Twitter account will one day rise up and destroy them all. They thought he was half-kidding, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The media has an obsession with reporting every single thing that Trump does" -- that is true. My personal opinion is that's it's silly, destructive, and I wish they wouldn't. So? We do not delete articles on the basis of "Highly notable, good article, but I think the subject is silly"... "Highly notable, good article, but the fact that this is notable is destructive to the American and world political system, so delete"... "Highly notable, good article, but I wish it wasn't notable, so delete". We're supposed to report what is notable, not what we wish was notable. See the difference?
President Trump's tweets are notable because they are widely reported. Why they are widely reported is not our concern. But FWIW there's certainly good reason -- they are widely reported (Unlike Obama's; he tweeted too, did you even know that?) because they contain new material. Obama's tweets were carefully considered and part of an overall communication strategy, so they were boring and unimportant (they didn't say anything that wasn't also said through normal channels). Trump's tweets are just objectively different, and so they are treated differently. Ignoring this fact doesn't help anyone. Herostratus (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever heard of the other examples, but the Miliband bacon sandwich is still being talked about - here, for example. But I seriously don't think covfefe will be being talked about in three years time.  Seagull123  Φ  21:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is Wikipedia for Pete's sake, not Know Your Meme. Can we have the slightest element of class and not focus on every single little tabloid thing? Someone tweeted something dumb/misspelled. It's not worthy of a wiki article. 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC) MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Internet memes has about 1,000 articles. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't delete this article, I mean. Nothing against the word living somewhere else on Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody expected it to not last the day. The first day is when everything gets hotter. Third day's when it fizzles. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It got much bigger because Sean Spicer, instead of just saying it was a typo, said with a straight face that "certain people" knew what it meant. So it blew up again now that he's actually indicating the president is sending out cryptic messages via Twitter, and that insanity (that they are not even allowed to admit Trump made a typo) represents massive dysfunction in the White House. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't say anyone knew what it meant, he said he thinks Trump and some other small group knew what he meant. Sometimes people know what they mean to say and mean to say it, but something stops them midthought. Sometimes people tell other people what they intend to tweet about later. It in no way indicates secret codes, midnight madness, Russian conspiracies, trolljobs or anything of the sort. The press are simply rabid today and grasping at everything from every angle for sweet, sweet clicks. All ends Friday. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely different sort of incident, isn't it? Follow-up is foreseeable when a company violently mistreats a customer. The customer is always right. Someone's bound to get suspended, various suits pop up, ads change, rules change, spokespeople speak clearly and effectively. There'll be none of that here, only chatter. You simply can't impeach a President for tweeting covfefe. Can't make him grovel, can't boot him out of the Hall of Fame, can't even really take your business elsewhere. It's just covfefe, period. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Merge might make sense for those reasons, but a full Delete doesn't. Separate Article or not, the information is notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In wiki-speak, information cannot be WP:N-notable. Information has only two important properties at Wikipedia, it has a source and it has relevance. As a wiki-concept, notability only means "is suitable as the subject of a stand-alone article". This is not so suitable, but as a likely search term, and as a sentence or two in another article, it is fine. --Jayron32 03:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is that an argument for "keep"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a gold standard as a source, that's all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N makes it clear that the primary guideline for notability is whether it’s discussed in reliable sources (To quote that: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.”) “Covfefe” clearly has been: It made the front page of the New York Times. Please explain, by linking to relevant Wikipedia policy, how “Covfefe” is not notable, even though it was on the front page of the New York Times (ideally, please link to deletion discussion where something that made the front page of the NYT got deleted). Samboy (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue. It is that it does not pass a number of other guidelines, and that is the reason for all those delete !votes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote Herostratus from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trump_orb:

reading pages pointed to rather than than just relying on their titles is recommended. We just went over this with WP:TOOSOON which essentially says "wait until there are reliable sources"... OK here is what WP:NOTNEWS says: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", although "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion", and then it drills down with four bullet points. #'s 1 (no original reporting) and 3 (we're not a Who's Who) and 4 (we're not a diary) pretty clearly don't apply, leaving #2 as the only possibly germane guidance. It says “Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.... Wikipedia is also not written in news style.” I mean, it's fairly general... "most' newsworthy events do not qualify... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", so it's not a blanket proscription against recent events. And then the example, the only example, it gives of the kind of stuff we don't want is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which has nothing to do with this article.

WP:FART has also been brought up, but that covers routine coverage in, say People magazine — not the front page of The New York Times. Samboy (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Covfefe Keep as the very surprising attention this has got with the top story of the day in most news organizations, and probably continue as a top story for at least another day. It is becoming a cultural artifact. It is historic.--Covfefe user (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Covfefe user (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notable. Keep. One of the highest-numbered posts. Misty MH (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. It has already been pointed out to you that the story is on the front page of today's New York Times.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if this ends up being the first AFD in en-WP's history where the closing admin summarizes the consensus as "covfefe", I'm going to laugh my butt off. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it the wrong way around: meeting WP:GNG means that notability is "presumed". GNG goes on to say:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not

In other words, WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG, and no amount of coverage in reliable sources can make a WP:NOT topic notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the niche item called the "santorum" is considered notable, then this widely known item certainly is too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:WHATABOUTX. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a rule, or merely a suggestion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly no rule against following good advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the best advice is, "Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid." If I come to Wikipedia to find out about it, and it's not there, my immediate assumption is that Wikipedia is out of touch with the world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better as "Don't make Wikipedia look stupid." Telling humans to try just lets them feel good about themselves when they fail the first time, knowing they tried. I don't know about you, but if I can fail and feel good about it, I'm only going to pretend to try, especially if the alternative is suffering for the sake of Wikipedia seeming hip. Besides, by the time people need to come to Wikipedia to wonder the truth of covfefe, wondering that won't even be cool anymore. We'll be that old fuddy-duddy doing the macarena at weddings, alone, forever. Collectively, I mean. Individually, we can go either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then it's "DON'T make Wikipedia look stupid" - and the rest of my statement still applies. We serve the readers, not ourselves. Rabid deletionists often forget tht. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're talking! Changed my vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This sums up American politics and how social media has played a part it in.Sgerbic (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important, groundbreaking article. Will be useful to historians that want to trace the emergence of the second dark ages and Trump's reign of terror. Crucial historical document. This is not the place to pay partisan politics and cover up for Daddy, Trumpkins. 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. Although I believe the word has achieved ample notability in non-trivia (and Wikipedia-approved) media to justify its own article, at the same time it is simply more appropriate for it to be discussed in the greater context with Trump's social media use. We can't create new articles every time he does a typo, even if the typo ends up being a bit of a cultural phenomenon as has happened with covfefe. That said it could be revisited at a future date to see if "covfefe" has the same longevity in the public eye as Fuddle duddle did. 136.159.160.4 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After spending some time in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not archives, there is a pretty sizable WP:NOTNEWS misapplication going on here. None of the 4 points under notnews have been met here, particularly the "routine news" of #2. This is not "routine news", this is a flurry of national an international discussion of the event. Yes it is an event, this isn't just about a famous person making a tweet typo but rather the President of the US, a persona with a propensity for bombastic social media presence who made a bizarre, mangled, half-sentence tweet in the early morning hours. WP:NEVENT should be the one to judge by, and IMO we're certainly in or nearing the "very likely to be notable" standard of WP:EVENTCRIT. "WP:Notnews" is a misnomer and should be retitled "NotRoutineNews" ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Major cultural impact, covered by news sites world over. It's only day 2 and it's being used by thousands (at least) of people on Social Media.

If not keep, then at least merge. Walloper1980 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, if by "merge some of it" you mean to actually copy and rewrite the content from here into the other article, then deletion is not acceptable as we will violate our contributor's copyright and the licence we require them to licence it under. If content from here is copied or moved, even if later rewritten, to another article then the article needs to be kept for the edit history somewhere. (Technically under the CC we probably only require the list of names but the norm is to keep the edit history whenever possible, especially since we are only supposed to be CC only when getting the content from elsewhere.) It would make most sense to keep it at the current location and simply turn it into a redirect, although this isn't required provided the edit history is kept and people are able to find it from whereever the content is copied/moved to. The only way this could be deleted is if any content elsewhere is written from scratch without reference to this article. Even just copying the references would IMO be a bad idea, especially since there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason why we should lose the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. !Vote adjusted accordingly.- MrX 23:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump on social media. Sure, it meets GNG. We can still have information on it. But an entire article on one trivial tweet and the news cycle it took over? WP:NOTSTUPID. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge to Donald Trump on social media (per Enterprisey above). WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARS, maybe this should just be put on Wikinews instead? (I know WP:10YEARS talks about the content of an article, but I think it can also be applied to article subjects)  Seagull123  Φ  21:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of 6/1/2017 12:47 PM EST, a Google Search of Covfefe showed "About 5,450,000 results". Minutes later, at 12:56 PM EST the same search on Google showed "About 6,030,000 results". As of 6:17 PM google shows " About 10,400,000 results". More than notable for a word that didn't exist 2 days ago. Any word with over 10 Million results on Google definitely deserves its own page in Wikipedia. AAAAA 6:20 PM EST, 1 June 2017
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOTURBANDICT. Ceosad (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it is not a dictionary. But with over 10 million Google Results it's a notable media event. Just checked and right now Google shows "About 14,400,000 results". AAAAA 6:59 PM EST, 2 June 2017
Here. (Not pretty and missing responses. Will delete it in 24hrs) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a story "has been covered in every major media outlet," as I wrote in the post you are responding to and as no one is challenging, that does indeed show notability. The page views are down because the article is being noindexed pending the outcome of this deletion discussion. The Ten Year Rule has to do with writing style. To interpret as a rationale to delete an article goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. Now that this material appears on the German, Japanese, Dutch, and Czech Wikis, I find it even more difficult to understand why anyone would want to delete it. Whiff of greatness (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiff of greatness: I'm not going to talk about the pageviews per my point above and WP:POPULARPAGE. And to your point about 10YEARS, essays are not policy, linking to one is just a quick way of showing your reasoning, and I've already said that while 10YEARS doesn't talk about notability/article subject, I used the same reasoning used in the essay for the purpose of notability/subject. So if you want a policy, look at the first bullet point on WP:NOPAGE (section of WP:N - so addressing your concern about notability) - Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page, which I think is important (to me, more important than the other bits of that section) - more complete context could be given on Donald Trump on social media. Also, it has not yet demonstrated lasting notability. And just because other language wikis have a page about this, why should we too? They have different policies/guidelines from us, so have different standards for inclusion in their language WP. (Also striking my comment for delete, while keeping the merge comment).  Seagull123  Φ  15:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: the book you mentioned was published in March 2015, so cannot prove the notability of "covfefe" or Trump's actions as President. The book doesn't even mention "Donald Trump" (according to the Google Books search function). This book can prove the notability of "The presidential use and misuse of language", but not "covfefe", or anything about Trump.  Seagull123  Φ  13:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Fart --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) This Tweet was notable. Hillary Clinton replied twice. It was addressed in an official White House press briefing. It was the sole topic of rather large articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and CNN.com. It looks like UK papers also covered it.
(2) Thousands of people have already searched this on Wikipedia. I was one of them an hour ago. Wikipedia is a very good unbiased and no-nonsense source for the basics that people are curious about: What was the full context of the tweet? What time did it go out? Was it deleted? The New York Times wrote at least one long article on it, but they didn't include that information and it was behind a paywall. Wikipedia should answer questions like these, and these questions are very common.
(3) We don't know whether this will get bigger in the coming days and weeks. I'll say it now: I don't think the tweet was funny or interesting in and of itself. I would have ignored it, it's just a typo. But I would have been wrong, people are making a big deal out of this. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes more notable as more people react, not less notable.
(4) It doesn't matter if it is not funny. It doesn't matter if you don't think this is news. The New York Times thinks this is news. NPR agrees. The Guardian agrees. This is news. Fluoborate (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Internet meme clause in WP:GNG" because not every internet meme is notable. This one, is certainly notable. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MERGE: "Merging should be avoided if the resulting article is too long or 'clunky' ". This article is long enough to make a merge with Donald Trump on social media "too long". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's only about 2 sentences that would need to be merged. The rest of this is WP:HTRIVIA-level stuff, to wit "If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it." Most of this is unimportant, per WP:IINFO, to wit " merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." --Jayron32 02:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a debate as to which content in the article you would consider WP:HTRIVIA. The shear volume means that the article passes WP:GNG, and should be kept. Discussion on what part of the article should be removed on the grounds of WP:HTRIVIA should be done on the article's talk page, not on a discussion for deletion. WP:HTRIVIA should be applied on a fact by fact basis, not the article as a whole. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Way, way below WP:SIZERULE (10 kB + 7 kB). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you got your numbers, but the article Donald Trump on social media is currently 32 KByte, and the article Covfefe is currently 22 KByte. Merging 22 KBytes into a 32 KByte article would make the general topic of Donald Trump on social media too heavily tilted towards a single word. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Readable prose size, not total article size, as the guideline notes, using the User:Dr pda/prosesize gadget. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP a merge does not entail literally taking everything from this article and putting it in Donald Trump on social media. This article only needs a two-sentence blurb about what it was and the brief influence it had. And your perception of GNG is a little hazy at best. "Shear volume" of an article is almost entirely irrelevant.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the "shear volume" of the coverage. And no, WP:109PAPERS does not apply in this case. WP:109PAPERS is for the case that all 109 newspapers say the same thing. In this article, the 38 references do not all say the same thing. Sure, while some facts in the article could be removed as fluff (WP:HTRIVIA in Wikipedia lingo), the article as a whole is fairly solid. I don't think it should be cut down to "a two-sentence blurb" given the amount of coverage that it has generated. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article possesses world-historical importance. Symbolic of the astonishingly rapid decline in moral and intellectual standards and the decay of human civilization itself since Trump's violent seizure of power. 63.143.193.120 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This outlandish comment might be considered a WP:BLPVIO. Considering the IP's other edits,[5] a block might be necessary. — JFG talk 06:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. The precipitous decline of intellectual standards in Western civilization is hardly demonstrated by a simple typo committed by a person who was never exactly a shining exemplar of Western intellectual standards in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darn right, Ad Orientem. That is what I said. This is not a "tabloid". Imagine Encyclopedia Britannica covering this? No self-respecting encyclopedia should. Plus, this is maybe a record-long AfD. We've been sucked into Trump-style attention-drawing, time-wasting, resource-draining nonsense. Humans (and Wikipedian, a higher form of human) should focus on more worthy matters. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica? Britannica Online has 120,000 articles. Wikipedia has 5.4 million. Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get distracted from the point. We are talking about an article whose subject has roughly the same long term significance as what I had for lunch today. That this is even being seriously debated is embarrassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second comment – Here's my second (far more detailed) comment:
Analysing the arguments
There are two main arguments here:
  • The topic by far meets GNG.
As you can see, both main arguments are too narrow in their focus. But what about other arguments?:
  • Just a tiny part of an explanatory supplement. No mentions in policies or guidelines.
  • C'mon, it's just a cryptic tweet by an idiot.
  • Perfectly correct, apart from the fact that it is not policy-based. :)
Still more rebuttals.
Analysing what people think
If this was an article on practically anything else in approximately the same circumstances, the closure would be 'No consensus' or 'Keep'. But this is about one of dozens of billions of tweets on Twitter, and one of thousands of cryptic tweets by Trump. It just so happens to be in the most concentrated area of Wikipedia, making it one of the longest AfDs ever in half a day.
My opinion
I think that 'covfefe' is a worldwide phenomenon, from being a Minecraft splash to featuring on the front page of the New York Times, and getting number plates + a joke petition to rename a town to 'Covfefegate'. I have thought well and this is my opinion:
Weak Keep for now, wait a year, and reconsider the validity of having an article about the topic with the coverage in books.
Whether or not there is significant coverage in books will help us truly decide whether NOTNEWS applies in this case.
Closure
I personally think merge is the best possible decision, but that should be decided on the talk page. Closing options:
  • Redirect – Not much support for this case, so no.
  • Delete – Will entirely ignore the 'keep' case, so no.
  • No consensus – Will trigger a huge riot, so no
  • Merge – Best possible solution, so yes
  • Keep – Not really... no!
  • Relist – Oh, not more, please... no!
  • Wait – Maybe?
  • Start a new AfD entirely – Maybe?
  • My option – Let's wait and see...
So this is my comment, and please read it thoroughly. THIS COVERAGE IS NOT ROUTINE COVERAGE, which is what notnews applies to. I tried to set my opinion at an agreeable level, but still... J947(c) (m) 01:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Numerous sources compared this to: We begin bombing in five minutes, by Ronald Reagan. See: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump on social media#Covfefe. Should be sufficient to cover the term for now. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump on social media#Covfefe. Looking at it from outside the US, I don't think every strange thing Trump says or does merits its own article. Sjö (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'll quickly dispense with the presumed notability of WP:GNG. Significant coverage - there are 41 citations in the article at this moment, spanning WashPo, Politico, New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, and BBC's Newsbeat as a few examples. This is just a handful of the many sources dedicated to covering this one tweet and that's just what's in the article now. Reliable - refer to the previous list, the answer is self-evident. Sources - again look at the previous list, all of these are secondary sources. Independent of the Subject - Yes. So, it meets presumed notability. I see a lot of NOTNEWS arguments above, I'd turn to WP:EVENTS rather than WP:NOTNEWS for this, but, I'll cover both anyway. In terms of NOTNEWS I think Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion is most relevant. It's a fair point, but, the main feature is "enduring notability". The question is, is this a five minute talking point that will disappear from the collective memory of mankind by the end of the week, year, or will it remain for ten. Crystal balling aside, I can't really say one way or another, but, it'll live on as a minor thing that a few people will look at every now and then. By the end of the month 99% of the initial traffic will be gone, but, that's true of almost every single event based article on the encyclopaedia. Pick any major event we have an article for and look at the traffic received on the day of the event, one day after, one month after, and one year after. I picked the 2016 Nice attack as an example. On the day of the event it received 250,000+ views. By the next day it had dropped to 75,000. By the end of the week that was down to 25,000. By the same day the next month at 2,500. What do you know, exactly 1% of the traffic that existed on day 1. Now it's receiving a total of about 1,000 views a day. Compare it to Covfefe which is now at one week old news. Day 1; 28,000 views, Day 2: 50,000 views, Day 6: 7075 views. By the end of the month, I project it'll be receiving about 50 views a day. I'd personally look at this from the notability events guideline. Unless Covfefe enters the common parlance, and it probably won't, it won't have much of a lasting effect beyond the occassional person getting a laugh out of it. So no, it probably won't meet WP:LASTING. As for WP:GEOSCOPE; Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article, while the Covfefe event went global, it shouldn't be the only reason for this article existing. Next comes WP:DEPTH - In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines. The tweet left everyone puzzled. What came next is news sources, internet discussion boards, and regular old pundits trying to work out the meaning of the word covfefe and meaning of the tweet as whole. One word; Analysis. Just read the interpretation section of this article to see it for yourself. Then we get to WP:PERSISTENCE, like I've said above, it'll persist, but, only in a very minor sense. Last, but not least, WP:DIVERSE; Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source. Refer to my list a while ago, it's a diverse array of sources. Where does this leave us? honestly, I'd like to keep the article. It's fairly well written, uses an array of good sources and goes into some detail. It's also just a hilarious article. Failing that, however, this should be merged into Donald Trump's use of social media where it already has a small dedicated section that links to the main article currently under discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and if it is still relevant in a week, then Keep. Calicodragon (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not WP:NOTE. It's a tweet, nothing more than a tweet! This is a WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA and not a tabloid. Got a lot of media attention and was° soon gone again. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS or WP:SOC. It's nothing we need in a week.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump on social media. This is just one of many social media gaffs by Trump, and taken as a whole, they are a notable facet of his presidency, but this single tweet, while garnering lots of immediate press attention, is not significant enough for its own article. It's an uncorrected typo. Funny, but hardly earth-shattering. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Donald Trump on social media. If in time it becomes an accepted part of the English language, e.g. Granfalloon, grok, vorpal, the article can be resurrected.--KTo288 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:EVENT says Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. This has already been covered in a variety of sources, each of that are very different from the next. This is being analyzed overwhelmingly as the very meaning of this word is being guessed. It was received a tremendous depth of coverage, another criteria that renders it notable. We are also not supposed to rush to delete articles, especially if it's not a WP:BLP. We should at least let this remain another week or two before such consideration so we can see what happens. Given that this is an event, and this meets so many criteria for a notable event and is notable as an event, it might be worth calling it "Covfefe incident" in order to better comply. 96.95.28.1 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)— 96.95.28.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But a "Covfefe" is an incident, so that would be like calling it the "incident incident". Actually I am pretty sure that "covfefe" means, like, a kerfluffle (a kind of messed up incident), but with a political twist. Anyhow Covfefe incident is now a redirect to Covfefe. --doncram 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hats off to IP 96.95.28.1. This is a model of how AfD comments should be written. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether in the future people will "need" this article or not, this shouldn't be a reason for keeping the article.  Seagull123  Φ  23:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe&oldid=1144175791"