Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The speech that Donald Trump gave upon his victory is not notable. The victory is notable. The two were conflated when this article was created. Note that the "speech" and "issues" sections have no references. While the "significance" section does give a little bit of analysis that could suggest notability, it's clear that it is not lasting and sustained coverage that meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Most of the sources in the article, as well as the article, are about the victory itself rather than the speech specifically. κατάστασ η 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 02:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. There is nothing particularly notable about this speech. The campaign was notable. The results were notable. Those are already covered. Besides that, the style in fawning and unencylopedic (although perhaps a good pointer to what American news will be like once Trump shuts down the "fake news" outlets) AusLondonder (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a run-of-the-mill victory speech, though I suspect historians will look back on it as "a date that will live in infamy". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. I agree with the above. Neutrality^talk 03:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge with campaign article. I agree that this speech is not notable, and would be too much detail in the campaign article, so selectively merge the basic stuff. ansh 666 16:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, per nom, per AusLondonder. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Smerge into campaign article as per Ansh666. As noted below by Muboshgu, WP:SSEFAR can be used as a argument for keeping, which although not persuading me to entirely change my !vote, still makes my 'smerge' weak. J 947 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the cited material is in the Background section (which is about the campaign), while the rest of the article (about the speech) is uncited OR based on the speech itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Imma go against the grain here and say KEEP--but (and this is a big but)ONLY on the condition that a link to its (blindingly obvious) historical predecessor is posted in the "See also" section: [EXTERNAL URL REDACTED -Oshwah]. Deal? Good. Supervoter (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)(Note: since this user is THE SUPERVOTER ™ , his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions in which he participates. Please see my userpage if you have questions. Thank you for your understanding.)[reply]

Delete While I am in-favor of deleting it, I also see argument for retaining it. Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 has its own article. However, that perhaps is because that speech was arguably more substinative and has more room to be analyzed. I see none of that in this article, which comes-across as an article about this speech for the sake of having an article about this speech.SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping this because the Obama 2008 victory speech has an article is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And I don't know that that speech meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned that because someone might argue that there exists a bias. However, I beleive they'd be incorrect if they made that argument. SecretName101 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - A fair point. I was just responding to that hypothetical argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahhh, gotcha! SecretName101 (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above, the speech was not specifically notable compared to some others. It might make sense to merge it, again, as mentioned above. South Nashua (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His victory was notable but that's WP:NOTINHERITED. This content may be useful somewhere but Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is a large enough article already.LM2000 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (delete this one -and- Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008) (or redict both), because both have approximately the same amount of WP:RS and seem of equal significance/insignificance. I think it would make us look unfairly biased to keep one and not the other. I am open to changing my mind if I can be convinced the Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 was more significant than this one. I personally don't think either speech was significant or worth the time it takes to listen, but we have to decide based on the WP:RS and not our own opinions, so I'm going more with the comparable WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of significance: Richard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech has to be more significant, and we do not have an article on that. We do have Richard_Nixon's_resignation_speech. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is preventing you from nominating the Obama speech. I would likely !vote the same way I did here. It's not nominated now, though, so this thread cannot possibly end in the deletion of the other article. It's effectively an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If the other article had just been nominated and was kept, I would be more sympathetic to the idea it should be any factor at all here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was history, I am ashamed that there are so many who want to delete it!!!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not every moment of history is notable. South Nashua (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Weak Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Though there are sources about it, there doesn't seem to be enough reason to justify a stand-alone article (i.e. there are sources about every individual thing Trump does, but a subject worth mentioning on Wikipedia it needs to have a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, there is absolutely nothing special about this. We need to take a stand against this Trump related spam. We have articles about his family; his political positions; his immigration policy; his economic policy; his healthcare policies; his ancestry; his wall; his statements; his inauguration; his failed businesses; his bankruptcies; lists of his family members; et cetera, et cetera. Laurdecl ^talk 03:59, 26 February 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.