Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (2nd nomination)

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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. It is clear that there will not be consensus to delete this article. Sandstein 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump[edit]

[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)

Isn't this a bit too poltical for here? The opening statement literally boil down to "Trump is a big fat liar." If we had articles about how many presidents were taking the piss and how often, Wikipedia would be a lot bigger. HalfShadow 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Political" is fine; POV is not. Do you see a WP:NPOV violation? If so, where? Anyhow, there's nothing stopping you from making "Veracity of statements by [other president]" articles, as long as they're notable. Wikiacc (¶) 01:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does the OP have any policy-based reason for deletion of this article? As was pointed out in the first AFD (a SNOW keep) this is a notable topic that has been extensively covered by reliable sources. Meters (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep do we really need to do this again? Aside from the fact that "Trump is a big-fat liar" is NPOV it is very much true and the veracity (or lack of) his statements is more than adequately covered by independent reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My point is, you wouldn't see an entry in an encyclopedia titled "People Who Lie The Most." At best, this could be a subsection of Trump's actual entry, as opposed to it's own page. HalfShadow 02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your nomination is WP:POINTY? Okay. And let me know once the media starts widely reporting the veracity of anyone else's statements. Praxidicae (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POINTY is disruption for the sake of it. Don't get clever with me. HalfShadow 02:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't see a need re-creating this delete discussion after the way the first one ended. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 02:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the only reason provided, too political is is not a deletion criteria and even if everyone agreed that the article as written was too political that would be a case for a rewrite not deletion.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — There is a massive amount of published coverage of this topic, in multiple reputable sources. This can't be trumped with an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like potentially WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Obviously there's plenty of documentation for false statements made by Trump, but this article risks ballooning into an indiscriminate list of content that is only loosely related, which is something that is proscribed by WP:NOTDIRECTORY and can be explained more at WP:LISTCRUFT. It's easy to see why people may mistakenly believe that this article should be kept since it is obviously well sourced and the general topic is notable, but having it as a standalone article (rather than as a subsection of Donald Trump or a subsection of the topics he is talking about) is not really encyclopedic. (And of course you can find a lot of news articles about Trump being dishonest, but that isn't enough to justify an article. Much has been said about 'Honest' Abe Lincoln but no one would suggest putting together an article Veracity of statements made by Abraham Lincoln. Much has been said about Beyonce's talent but that won't be enough to save Beyonce listography. It's not enough to accumulate sources that touch on an article in general terms). Michepman (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — We've been down this road before. The volume of instances of content only continues to grow over time. Heavily covered in the media. Trump has his minions and I suspect this is just a few of them want to expunge the record of content unfavorable to him as he is being impeached. Trackinfo (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back essential items to main article/or other appropriate place. Actually I am not impressed with this article, but with the sources it's hard to argue against. I know the Trump's main article's quite big and struggles with space but it would be far better thing for the Project if the essential content of this article is to be merged there and the rest random opinions to be discarded. Definitely you'll not find any article resembling this one in context or in title in any proper encyclopedia. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely, numerous reliable sources have constantly reported on verifiably false or misleading statements, including fact checkers from The Washington Post and The Toronto Star; see, for example, references cited for File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png. SatisfiesWP:GNG easily and is not political. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant notability demonstrated in sources as a topic in-itself. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back essential items to main article/or other appropriate place. Israell (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a trout to OP. I don't see any attempt to work this out on the talk page first. The subject is obviously very notable and properly sourced. The "political" argument is spurious. We don't AfD articles which disagree with our political POV. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work. We follow the sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the topic itself did receive more than a fair share of significant coverage while satisfying WP:NPOV as well from what I can see. Looking at some of the opposing views, I can see why WP:OR and WP:SYNTH may be a concern, but ultimately I don't see a violation but will admit that perhaps a future edit or two could change that.TruthGuardians (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Notable and well sourced. Negative facts are not against NPOV (as long as they're not given undue weight). Disregard for reality is Trump's brand, so the article should remain. 158.26.131.11 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly notable topic in the last three years, and one that will be studied by presidential historians for many years to come. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the biggest, if not the fattest, presidential liar in history, with falsehoods being spewed out at an unprecedented rate, so much so that The Washington Post (over 12,000 as of August), CNN ("Donald Trump lies more often than you wash your hands every day"), The Guardian ("The 'exhausting' work of factcheckers who track Trump's barrage of lies") and others are keeping count/track. Satisfies WP:GNG easily. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likely to be contentious for some editors, but this is a topic with a shed load of coverage in RS and so worthy of coverage in WP. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexbrn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2019 (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.