Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump raised fist photographs

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 per WP:SNOW. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump raised fist photographs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Should be merged to the above mentioned article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and United States of America. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the photos are indeed directly related to the assassination attempt, but have found distinct commentary, interpretation, and coverage as something more. WP:DROPTHESTICK on these deletion noms, please. BarntToust (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable given the amount of commentary on this image specifically. While it is a picture of the assassination attempt, it has gotten a lot of commentary based on it's use and composition. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Csg95 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frivoulous nomination. ND61F (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, also per @BarntToust can we please Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleary a separate notable topic with wide coverage of the photos and not the actual attempt to kill past and potentially future President of the USA. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This certainly warrants its own section on the original article, but not its own article. SlyAceZeta (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Patently false, since notable photographs have their own articles, not some nonsense concept of just being a subsection for the broader topic daruda (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Astropulse (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. All of the relevant information is covered there in a few concise paragraphs. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it's better to keep topics that provide each other context in the same article when possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is / was widely reported on by a number of notable media outlets and extremely popular on social media. Also suggest we get a non-cropped version at low resolution to illustrate the article. User:WoodElf 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete it. This serves no purpose other than to elevate Trump as some kind of tough guy. Does Reagan have a dedicated article about the aftermath? Ridiculous. 32.220.216.27 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Biased IP user with a low IQ take eh? not surprised. the point isn't trump, the point is the photograph. and 'raising the flag on iwo jima'/ ground zero both have articles. daruda (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make no further comments on people's IQs please. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's maintain WP:NPOV when providing reasons for deletion. User:WoodElf 01:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- this IP user does not seem to be giving a proper train of thought for any reason. They seem to be bringing aftermath of Reagan into this, and that is not really an "iconic, widely-discussed and notable" photograph sort-of-thing. This non-argument full of a personal opinion makes no sense to me. BarntToust (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the photographs have distinct and substantial commentary Scu ba (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP since this is a rather obvious example of a notable photograph. No idea why @LilianaUwU nominated this for deletion. Going through the user's profile, this initiative to delete this photograph seems to arise out of a rather partisan outlook towards Trump rather than an objective understanding of articles about notable photographs daruda (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This photograph fulfills the nessicary criteria for use and an article beyond a context. I'll have to agree personally on how it seems the nominator has a personal bias, but I should not want to say anything definitive, like you, with the key absolving word "seems" making this only an observation, not an accusation. BarntToust (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly, I do not like Trump nor do I agree with practically anything of his, but that does not take away from the fact that this photo is incredibly important and will go down in the history books. 174.26.132.119 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dadude sandstorm: Please assume good faith and don't cast aspersions about alleged bias. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't care less about who the dude in the picture was. If it was Biden, I'd have the same reasoning. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleary a separate notable topic with wide coverage Bloger (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to Keep, as per the countless keep votes above me, a historic photo. Politely and respectfully speaking, the OP's participation history leaves me and other people thinking about the vexatious component to this particular nomination! User:Historyexpert2 — Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Politely and respectfully speaking" doesn't automatically make your aspersions polite and respectful. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic photographs such as this usually warrant their own articles. With the amount of attention this photo in particular is receiving, both from supporters of Trump and the media, I believe the article is appropriate. NorthropChicken (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep: Photograph has substantial coverage as an image, separate from the event it depicts. Seems comparable to the Trump's mugshot, in which there are separate articles covering his arraignment and the mugshot as an image. --CamAnders (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading down this discussion, you are the first person so far to actually address what a deletion discussion should address, which is depths and provenances of sources. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Public image of Donald Trump or Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. This is not really an independent subject, and frankly it's way too soon to know if there will be any lasting legacy for these photos. This seems to be a very redundant content fork of a subject that can be adequately covered in either of the other articles. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unsure why user wanted to delete this photo. It's already received enough news coverage to warrant its own page. Twinbros04 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to admit, there comes a point that in a dire context like this, it can never be too soon to say that something coming from a historic event is going to have an impact. Nobody would say this, much less the entire article's worth, if it were not impactful meaningfully. Trump would never had a mugshot to hold its own article had he not engaged in criminally questionable activity, its own thing as well. same logic. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:282D:933B:D824:B63 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Mug shot of Donald Trump is very similar to the image of Trump with his fist raised in terms of spread & use, and that page was created the day after the mugshot was taken. It appears that an image (especially of Trump) can be called 'iconic' or 'noteworthy' this quickly in this day & age. I can't think of a reason why that page gets to stay up but Trump's raised fist gets taken down. jan Janko (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , a pretty significant photo in itself, does deserve to have an article about it itself Waleed (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to think that it is a rather iconic picture. I can't really snow close/withdraw with so many people wanting to merge, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 4 wanting it not its own article, opposed to 15 for. Remember, this isn't a majority vote, but rather a test of logic. Logic trumps all. BarntToust (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE: not "Trump" like the subject of the photo. trumps as in logic is better than majority. Consensus seems to be then, that it is iconic, subject of coverage, and worthy of an article based by the means for having one. Maybe wait for other editors to jump on? The logic won't change, but maybe SNOW conditions will. BarntToust (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it's not a majority thing, but even then, that's still a rather small sample size for this many merge/delete !votes. I can't snow close now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, to wait for other editors to jump on means to wait. Then things may or may not change for SNOW. BarntToust (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And I wouldn’t call maybe four people “so many”, just saying. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And @LilianaUwU you really shouldn’t close anyway. I’m pretty sure you’re considered involved because you were the original nominator. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that bar you from closing? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically I could, if I withdrew and the outcome was unanimous. But that's not the case. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no doubt the main iconic photo will forever linger in American politics and history. It well deserves its own article. The assassination attempt will have a big effect on the November election, and the images Vucci took symbolise it somewhat. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we also have articles on the possibly less noteworthy mugshot of Donald Trump from last year. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for obvious reasons. It's a notorious and powerful photograph. Devann (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not everything is a fork that has to be merged into a bigger article. Sometimes a topic is notable enough to have its own article, even if it falls under the umbrella of a broader event. This is clearly the case here. The photo clearly meets GNG by itself — no question about that — so there should be no issue WP:SPLITTING it from the main article. I have yet to see any policy-based arguments as to why this should be merged. C F A 💬 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The detailed, significant coverage of this photo in many reliable sources shows that this photo is already notable, and additional coverage in reliable sources is highly likely in days, weeks, months and years to come. If coverage unexpectedly fizzles out, then we can reconsider in a year or two. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Second person to actually address sourcing. Brownie points! ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable images. Bruxton (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE This should just all be included in the other article. The Photo-op in front of the church, for instance, is an all-inclusive article about the event, not just the photos taken. CNC33 (. . .talk) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a great point actually, did not consider this. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. It's snowing in here. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 04:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. --04:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is already notable. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PAGEDECIDE do not apply, since this photo has significant commentary in numerous news articles, and it would be unwieldy to cram it all in the main page, as well as carrying WP:DUE concerns. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of the photos to justify an article at this stage. Aircorn (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly deserves its own article Epic.Rap.Battles.ofhistoryfan42 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the photo has potential to remain iconic enough to have its own page, but its impact has yet to be seen. I think it's simply too soon for it to warrant its own article. Unlike the Mug shot of Donald Trump page, it does not represent a presidential first or anything like that. As is, I think the blurb in the main article suffices. However, I think it should be discussed again if the assassination attempt has a profound impact on the outcome of the election. Pac-Man PHD (talk)
Keep. Vucci's photographs meet WP:GNG. Press: The Washington Post [1], The Atlantic [2], Deutsche Welle [3], The Australian [4], Politico [5], The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [6], Hindustan Times [7]. Commentary: The Washington Post [8], The New Yorker [9], India Today [10], The Spectator [11]. Levivich (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging this much commentary about the photographs to the assassination attempt article would be WP:UNDUE for that article. Levivich (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sixth person to actually address sourcing. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There's a ton in the article, there always has been. Levivich (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: WP:TOOSOON. It's been a day guys, come on. This is wayyy too soon to call an image iconic. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 06:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very recent photography with a substantial commentary from RS --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: can be contained in assassination attempt article.Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Photo is notable. As an Australian, even I can appreciate its notability. —Mjks28 (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump: Does this warrant it's own article? The article could be added in the main one. Lordseriouspig 07:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Iconic images deserve to have their own article on Wikipedia. So I'm going to nominate this as "Keep". It can also be merged too, but I think this article should be kept. As of anyone living around anywhere around earth, not just the US, but other countries, it's recognised as well. It's been going everywhere around the news in Australia, this image is also viral in Australia too. So as an Australian, I see this as "keep". PEPSI697 (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an iconic image that may well be the defining image of the election and is covered by enough RS's. But I will say to the nominator that if you want this merged, AFD is the wrong place for it. You probably want WP:PM for that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball clause 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per LilianaUwU. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have stated the image itself is notable on its own. It's being widely circulated and is looking to be the most important photograph taken this year (perhaps for many years). It's a defining image of this event. — Czello ^(music) 09:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as complete and unencyclopedic trivia. Merely a fork of the parent article. Obviously not all of it would need to be carried over. Why are so many newish account attracted to this AfD. ——Serial Number 54129 09:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been happening this way at AFD for over 2 decades, and is one reason that we have {{notavote}}. There's no ballot and this isn't a vote, but people think that it is and want to stuff it. Sad to say, there are a lot of comments above that are just noise and of no use to a closing administrator, because they do not show at all how Wikipedia deletion policy applies, one way or the other, to the question at hand. Some people have addressed sourcing and notability, though, which is exactly what a closing administrator needs. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BarntToust Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source cited in the article clearly demonstrate independent notability to the incident. Juxlos (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect &/or Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (&/or subsequent articles). Not yet independently notable. Suggest that Keep !votes should provide links to sustained coverage in multiple secondary, independent sources which are primarily about the article subject; per WP:THREE. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My vote lists 11. Levivich (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, aye, aye, and aw'. And yet, wee man; WP:SUSTAINED. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BarntToust and others. The photographs are a separate and notable topic. They enjoy widespread coverage in numerous reliable sources. Clearly notable and deserving of their own article. GhostOfNoMeme 11:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was this source (albeit not in our article) that convinced me. —Cryptic 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — for now While my personal view is that this article should be merged to the one on the public image of Trump, and to be clear I also think it would have been better to start coverage of the whole incident at Trump’s article, I believe it is still covered by BREAKING. With current events, we often try to avoid rapidly creating articles about things before notability is established (and it is a hard line to CRYSTALBALL the importance of these photos that are indeed falling out of the new cycle but could make a comeback).
But if such articles do get created, we try to avoid rapidly deleting them (unless they clearly qualify for speedy) — editors will have centred their coverage efforts at the talk page and displacing that is not helpful in the context of current events. So, for now, just keep it as a matter of process, and revisit AfD at a better time, per NORUSH. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, likely notable given the amount of sources specifically on the photograph (e.g. those mentioned by Levivich), although WP:TOOSOON might come into play. Not opposed to a later renomination once the dust settles, if the notability happens to not be WP:SUSTAINED. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are aspects of this topic that can't be covered anywhere else, such as the this-photograph-as-a-work-of-photography aspect, as this is a significant work for photography as a field; and clearly, dealing with that in an article about the assassination attempt or Trump's public image is impossible.—Alalch E. 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (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.