Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting

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 delete. "Delete" was the most common and best-argued position in the discussion, based on the argument that political dustups involving the former president often attract a lot of shorter-term coverage, but are not necessarily notable enough over the longer term to justify independent articles per WP:NEVENT – several cited the WP:NETRUMP essay about this. (I note that this is true of political controversies in general, not just ones involving Trump.) The pro-keep arguments claiming long-term notability is likely in this case necessarily involve some speculation and were not accepted by most participants, who either rejected them entirely in favor of deletion or were skeptical and favored merging or moving to draft instead. Some pro-keep sockpuppetry was of course discounted, and a few of the non-sockpuppet claims were implausible, claiming a proven, definitive long-term notability that simply isn't possible at this point in time.

The alternative options of merging or moving to draft did not attract enough support to form a consensus. However, given that there is reliably sourced material here and it might prove out as notable over time, I am open to restoring the content as a userspace draft if there is an editor willing to take responsibility for it (keeping in mind that it contains WP:BLP material) and to acknowledge that any speedy recreation will be subject to WP:G4 deletion. RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting[edit]

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

Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is well meaning, but it is born of WP:RECENTISM. The dinner itself fails WP:NEVENT as it is unlikely to pass the WP:10YT. Kanye and Fuentes' antisemitism and Trump's ongoing campaign are ongoing issues that can be documented at their own pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Draft- or user-ify. It's just a meeting. Things that were said at the meeting can be documented on the appropriate pages. It can't currently be established that it was a groundbreaking, historically important meeting that deserves a dedicated article. --174.95.87.151 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: Accidentially double posted. See my main comment below.] The subject clearly meets the criteria of notability. It's clear that this has significant, long-term repercussions from a variety of angles. It's impossible to summarize the events of the article in each individual article's page. Multiple foreign leaders and almost every major American political figure has commented on it. This isn't to mention the impact on Kanye's legacy and the impact on the American Christian and white nationalist movements. KlayCax (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how can it be clear that it has significant and long-term repercussions? It happened last week. Any repercussions beyond commentary will not have occurred yet. --174.95.87.151 (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my recommendation. Why delete and lose the work already done, when we can make it a draft and have it ready if/when it establishes notability? --174.95.87.151 (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snap Keep At this point, the balance of evidence indicates that this is notable event that will have a relevant historical impact on the 2024 election, like a number of other political scandals, is garnering interest, and provides useful contextual background for the current election, popular culture, and the global far-right/anti-semitic movement. Should the passage of time bear out your WP:CRYSTALBALL Prediction that this event will totally fade from interest, it will be simple enough to remove it later, whereas removing it now deletes the article at the precise time when people are most willing and able to contribute to it, thus permanently reducing the usefulness of the article. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/There-being Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deleting this article does not forbid the topic from being covered at Kanye West, Donald Trump, and Nick Fuentes, where, in light of our policies regarding breaking news topics, it is best covered at this time. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, no shit that (pointlessly and short-sightedly) deleting this article doesn’t forbid this topic being mentioned elsewhere, but who cares? There are some readers who will be interested in reading about this topic in particular- the Nazi dinner party scandal- the meeting , the reactions to it, and its repercussions, etc. Why should such readers have to read the Nick Fuentes or Kanye West page to find that information when what they came here to read about was THIS topic? This is a demarcated topic , a particular delimited political scandal (a former president dining with 2 Nazis at his home a few days after announcing his campaign) whose encyclopedic notability is basically unquestionable, which has been commented upon by every political figure in the country. I’ve not seen one non-spurious justification for deleting it other than people think the week-old article currently sucks. So go improve it. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
It would be impossible to adequately summarize the meeting on individual, respective pages. Topic clearly meets the criteria of notability. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured that bludgeoning on the part of the page creator is not a good look. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 01:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft where developments can be documented, and the question can be revisited if this becomes more than the splash in the news cycle it currently represents. BD2412 T 23:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft This article is very shoddy, but I reckon it could probably stay on Wikipedia if it is properly rewritten to be up to quality standards. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. As this topic has received a lot of attention in the news, I think we should take the time to write it out to standards, iron out the kinks, etc. instead of rushing to publishing an article that wasn't properly looked over. Unknown0124 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nom's comments about recentism are spot on. If this is notable for inclusion in an encyclopadeia, it is not notable as a meeting, but rather, in a wider context. It should be covered in Donald Trump articles, or an article that contextualises this within a larger whole. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly meets the criteria of notability. It's been headline news on almost every major newspaper and website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs)
Unsigned commentator, this misunderstands the concept of notability. Donald Trump is notable, Kanye West is notable, and so their meeting is reported, but we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a newswire, and so what is notable for an article is not an individual meeting that is widely reported, bu rather a much broader subject, which is to say Trump. If this is relevant, as suggested, for a 2024 bid, and if (and it is unknown at this point) but if that is a major factor in that bid, then the encyclopaedic subject is Donald Trump's presidential bid, and this will be a section of that. This page is a bit of nonsense. We might as well have a page on Donald Trump's views on raking forests (also widely covered in the news), but we don't, because being talked about is not notability of the subject in any form. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning move to draft, as per both @HadesTTW and @2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A. Lucksash (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify: while this particular dinner seems to be in the news a lot right now, will this be the actual event the article is about, or will this event just be part of a different article? I'm leaning toward the latter. Andre🚐 00:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Clearly has significant, long-term notability. It's been consistent, headline news on the front of almost every major website for over a week. The meeting has received attention from multiple foreign leaders (including heads of government and state), the Majority/Minority leaders of both the American House and Senate, represents an unprecendented moment in modern American history, and has received overwhelming attention in reliable sources. The criteria of WP:10YT will almost certainly be met. Reactions from domestic and international political figures — as well as the specific details of the meeting — can not be well covered in their individual respected articles. Clearly merits an independent article.
It's clear that this is far more than a mere splash in the news cycle. KlayCax (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KlayCax (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep: Seconding the arguments here. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It's relevant enough to mention in each respective person's biography but not significant enough for its own article. --TocMan (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not news. But that does not mean it can not have articles about subjects presently on the news. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep. Article has been improved enough since my vote. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article quality has no bearing on deletion discussions. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 23:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! that means 90 percent of the delete votes should be disregarded, since they mainly rely on spurious claims about article quality as their justification for deletion. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
  • Strong Keep I read reviewed all the criteria for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and Recentism isn't listed as a reason to delete an article. Furthermore, under the Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism article cited in the nomination for deletion, the suggested solutions do not focus on deletion. Instead it focuses on patience: "Wait and See." So it seems like patience rather than deletion is a better fit with Wikipedia policy. In the nine days since this event, its significance has continued to grow. Over the last seven years, the Trump campaign has developed a reputation for being impervious to mis-steps like this, but even Fox News has critically covered this event: Trump fires back at 'loser' McConnell, says Fuentes' views 'wouldn't have been accepted' if raised at dinner. While its possible that this event will fade in importance, it's also quite possible that it will continue to grow in significance and having a publicly available article to build on will provide a service to the community. mennonot (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So the argument is strong keep because it may be notable at some point? Wikipedia pages are kept on the basis of notability for an article, not the possibility the subject will be notable one day. If it is notable one day, the page can be created with a clear steer from the WP:RS that will then exist, which will show why it is notable for an article in its own right. Until that time, it is WP:TOOSOON to have this article, and your argument here reinforces that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think I was pretty clear that I think this is notable, but I didn't use that word because the original nomination did not. I see your argument above that this notability, it it exists, is only notable within the context of the wider Donald Trump campaign. I disagree. I think this is a notable event beyond the Trump campaign because it is the catalyst for a widening rift in the the Republican party that the Trump campaign is just a smaller part of. If your argument is that this is a notable event, but needs to be in a different article then you run into the question of where to put it and I definitely don't think this event can simply be confined within the Trump article or even the [[Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign]. It's implications apply to a variety of political contexts, not simply Trump. mennonot (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a major rewrite and I may consider draftification of the article, if this meeting is not that significant enough which made this event got a lot of attention from U.S. political sphere and media. I think everyone should be given a chance to develop this article in the mainspace. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redraft under a better name more reflective of how reliable sources refer to the event. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator comments. If it isn't deleted, it should be moved to Draft since the article is a mess at the moment. 92.22.180.128 (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for now with no prejudice to republication on the mainspace once it's been properly re-written KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - not only it gained a lot of media attention, it also influenced some other events later, and is widely referenced everywhere now. --GreenZeb (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Draftify over Delete per FormalDude's reasoning (though I don't think Keep is warranted). Agree with Andrevan's arguments. Oppose keep. DFlhb (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC); see below 08:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Drafify Likely a notable event, although can agree that recentism applies well and the article in its current form doesn't do much to make it stand out on its own. Nightmare RarityEnter the palace 13:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft per WP:RAPID. Not enough time has passed on this event to determine the topic's true notability. Kstern (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This clearly isn't a draft. 2601:C4:C300:A210:4D8A:F430:3257:BFBF (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it's quite telling that there's only one line devoted to the actual meeting and many, many more lines on the reactions to the meeting... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is an indication of the notability of what, without the fallout and reaction, would be a rather mundane event. The reaction is an indication of its notability. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perfect example of recentism. Reflecktor (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject clearly does not meet the criteria of notability. It's clear that this has no significant, long-term repercussions from a variety of angles. It's possible to summarize the events of the article in each individual article's page. Most foreign leaders and most major American political figures have not commented on it. This will not have an impact on Kanye's legacy or the American Christian and white nationalist movements. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • while I would prefer not to comment on other’s rationales, the statements made here are blatantly false . Most American political figures HAVE commented on the meeting, in fact. If you read the article sources you’ll see PBS interviewed no less than 59 Republican federal lawmakers on the meeting. Nor does “has been commented on by most politicians ” describe a reasonable criteria of notability, to begin with, but let’s not shit ourselves and say it hasn’t been commented upon by most politicians when we certainly know that the former president’s dinner party with Nazis indeed has. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS was written for exactly this sort of article. Eladynnus (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not sure why this piece of recent news can't be covered in the articles of the people in the meeting. Agree about WP:NOTNEWS. This could be reassessed later, but this isn't the time to create this article. Nemov (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was an extraordinary action by a US President that will be discussed for a long time to come. More details of the meeting will emerge. Anyone who supports "Delete" on this is complicit with this meeting and its participants, and has no place here on Wikipedia 24.80.7.130 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft and merge contents into other relevant articles. Not really strongly convinced that either keeping or deleting is the best course of action at this time. The high amount of coverage leads me to believe it's notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on the encyclopedia, but I don't think it makes for a great standalone article topic when not a lot of the information is about the meeting itself and we don't exactly know a lot about what was discussed; what makes the event significant is simply the fact that the most recent President of the United States had a meeting with some of the most prominent nazis in America and it was widely condemned by other elected officials. This can be mentioned in articles related to Donald Trump or Kanye West, but I don't think it's ready to be an article on its own.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notnews, move content to related articles. One or two paragraphs is what is needed about this topic, not a whole spinoff article. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I believe this event constitutes a major political scandal, nearly on par with the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape. It is highly relevant to U.S. politics, specifically with regard to the upcoming Presidential primaries. It will continue to be referenced and discussed both by U.S. politicians and popular media outlets throughout this election cycle and beyond. Cherio222 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per already mentioned reasons. We could justify an article for every particularly well-attended concert with some of the keep rationales. Making it a draft is also acceptable as a way to hedge the prospect of later or renewed coverage of this event. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it is absolutely relevant to current politics and the upcoming election cycle, and there is plenty or precedent for standalone articles on particular gaffes of presidential candidates that received enough media attention, and this is certainly more than a gaffe. I also dont support merging it into the Kanye article, as it has enough relevance to Trump and current political events. One of the most popular living artists going on a Nazi trip and meeting with a former president und current presidential candidate is absolutely relevant enough to warrant a standalone article. --jonas (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like the attention this has gotten (I'm a Trump supporter and I also love Dr. Verwoerd), but it's notable. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Strong keep. Keep in mind EVENTCRIT states recent events with unproven lasting effect are [not] automatically non-notable. WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH are met, with domestic and international coverage (in at least France and Israel) over more than a week. Scholars have already commented on this dinner (and the subsequent lack of disavowal) as a significant moment for the "white power" movement in America, which makes it likely that WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING will also be met in due time; IMO, a meeting between a former President and an out-and-out Holocaust denier and "white power" activist is significant, and will very likely be discussed in future books and published papers on Trump and white power in America. The fact that both Trump and West are running in 2024, and that Fuentes is advising the latter and partially supporting the former, makes it likely that this meeting will be brought up repeatedly during the 2024 campaign, which provides another argument for WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. So it meets the WP:EVENTCRIT. I endorse User:FormalDude's reasoning here, and additionally find that the criteria are met. Note that this stuff won't get added to Donald Trump (way too long as is; it doesn't even cover Access Hollywood) and only a small bit about it has been added to Racial views of Donald Trump but that page has over 100KB of prose. Finally, this article's current state has no bearing whatsoever on its subject's notability. DFlhb (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating a likelihood that something will be brought up in the future is a prime example of WP:CRYSTAL. It is equally likely that this will be completely forgotten on the wake of other events. At least a move to draft will provide time to see if further referencing of this event actually develops. BD2412 T 14:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, because the argument isn't "this topic isn't notable but will become so in the future", the argument is "this recent event is already notable and the OP's argument that it won't be notable in ten years time is the crystal ball here". 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D4CC:98B7:8177:BC80 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEVENT is exactly what's being discussed right here right now. You base your argument on the presumption that the event is already notable, which as evidenced by this AfD is very much up for discussion. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article passes WP:GNG, which makes it notable regardless of WP:NEVENT. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe anyone here has disputed that. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? No. The coverage needs to be lasting. A lot of events get a burst of coverage on the date of it and the days after (dog bites man anyone?). Any event that has two sources about it would be notable with that logic. ~StyyxTalk? 22:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is NOTTEMPORARY. It's been receiving new coverage each day since it occurred (now eleven days), including today. [1] [2] [3] ––FormalDude (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about this specific article (I have no intention to !vote). Just saying that a GNG pass isn't enough for an event to be notable. ~StyyxTalk? 22:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(The IP comment above isn't mine)
I don't get it. Isn't WP:CRYSTAL about preventing people from making an infinity of placeholder articles, about stuff like the U.S. presidential election in the year 9376 etc? That's a subtly different argument from arguments about how notability evolves, where it's justifiable to use (subjective) common sense. CRYSTAL's about events that haven't happened yet. Leaving CRYSTAL aside: if it was just news articles? Ok, point taken. But with scholars already weighing in; I think my assumptions are good. DFlhb (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly, in a truly absurd and farcical development, the opposers of this article cite WP: CRYSTALBALL as their justification, claiming somehow that "We don't know if this event will be notable in 10 years time." YOU are the crystal-ball gazers my friends, not us. (Note CRYSTALBALL's ciration as a reason to not delete this article in the very beginning of the thread! Right now, evidence indicates this article has met notability and relevance criteria, is receiving a wide volume of coverage, and is an important political scandal for the 2024 campaign. While it is of course true that we do not know if historians will find this event significant in 100 years, reference to such as a reason to delete this article is a cruel and absurd farce. YOU are the crystal-ball gazers, deigning to delete material because you have consulted your futurological investigations and decreed that future historians will not find this event relevant. Frankly, who gives a shit?2600:4040:90C5:8000:11B3:CF49:68BE:EB4E (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:11B3:CF49:68BE:EB4E (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
  • Delete and merge - a standalone article for this incident is not necessary or productive. This can certainly be mentioned at relevant articles about Trump, West, and Fuentes, but the event is not notable enough for its own article. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I don't think we can determine if this is really notable enough for a separate article until more time has passed. aismallard (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a new, comprehensive article on the Post-presidency of Donald Trump. That is currently a redirect into the overall Trump bio, but there is more than enough content to warrant a full, comprehensive, standalone post-presidency page. If folks don't have the capacity to do that, then keep this article. It has received extensive media attention (i.e., it has attained "significant coverage in reliable sources"). That is not surprising - this meeting is reflective of a wider resurgent trend of far-right antisemitism in the recent. Neutralitytalk 02:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'd find more support for that at Talk:Donald Trump. The excessive length of that article has been something editors there have been wanting to address for some time now. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the arguments that state that this is super recent WP:RECENT and also at best something that could work as a subset of other pages. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have checked quite a few times over the past few days trying to find a Wikipedia article on what is clearly a huge story. Finally I find there is one, and it's very frustrating to see it's already having people trying to delete it. RTredwell (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But per WP:NOTNP, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. News stories do not merit articles because they are news. So far, not one of the keep !(votes) above has provided any WP:RS that shows why this is a notable subject in its own right. And that is literally the only thing that matters. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In its own right" is subjective, here are some sources, and people can judge for themselves:
  • "CREW requests DHS records on Trump's dinner with Ye and Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago". CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
  • "'Dangerous,' 'Unprecedented': Why extremism experts are alarmed by Trump's dinner with Fuentes, Ye". Yahoo News. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
  • Israel, Steve (2022-12-02). "From haute cuisine to hate cuisine: Why Republicans are finally taking aim at Trump". The Hill. Retrieved 2022-12-04. (opinion, but he makes good points)
  • Zitner, Aaron. "Some Trump Jewish Allies at Breaking Point After Kanye West, Nick Fuentes Meeting". WSJ. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
  • Suebsaeng, Asawin; Suebsaeng, Asawin (2022-12-01). "DeSantis Tells Allies to Stay Mum About Trump's 'Nazi' Dinner. It's Part of a Bigger Plan". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
DFlhb (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC) ; edited 00:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a joke; now the Deletes are getting so desperate about their flimsy case that they whine the keep votes haven't provided sources in an AFD, when everyone knows you don't put sources in an AFD you put them in the goddamn article. I've said it before and I will say it again: Not a single "delete" vote has described a legitimate reason based in Wikipedia policy for deleting the article. They have falsely cited Crystal Ball, Not News, Recentism, and have cried about the quality of the article. An event being recent does not describe a reason to delete an article. (PS: Has anyone here actually read WP: RECENTISM? Nowhere in the article does it say that RECENTISM is a reason for article deletion. Indeed, it explicitly says the opposite.) An event being a piece of news does not describe a reason to delete an article. ALL events begin life as "news." And the only ones gazing into crystal balls are the deletes, who opine without any basis that this event "will not be important in 10 years" without bothering to inform us how their futurological investigations are conducted. What I likely see here, in truth, is a lot of Trumpkins who are upset that they are not able to whitewash Trump's latest political scandal from this encylopedia. It is well-established that political scandals that receive widespread coverage and comment by politicians across the spectrum are worthy of encyclopedic mention. Indeed, we have covered MANY vastly less important scandals here with standalone articles, such as the Hunter Biden laptop non-story. I am still waiting for a single delete vote to provide a policy based reason for not including this scandal in the encylopedia. The fact of the matter is, you don't have one, and that becomes more and more clear every day. The former president's Nazi Dinner party must stay. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
WP:ROUTINE would be the wiki policy. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE does not make sense as a justification for deletion here. WP: ROUTINE states "routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article." This was not a "routine event." It was a one of a kind occurrence in which the former president hosted 2 Nazis for dinner at his home. Every major political figure in the country was asked to comment on the event, as documented in the article. Several of these figures have commented that the event will likely preclude Trump's election. Whether or not these analyses are borne out, the event has obviously cleared the low bar of notability for events involving a president (we have an article on Covfefe for crying out loud) and I am unable to understand the acts of mental gymnastics that must be required to label this event "routine."2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
Please do keep in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette. The conversation is most productive when it focuses on arguments, not people. DFlhb (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DFlhb Agreed, and thank you for providing some sources to discuss. As per deletion guidelines, it is the sources that count to notability, and the article is notable if sources exist, regardless of whether they are in the article or not. But before looking at these, you say "in its own right" is subjective. There is a level of subjectivity in anything we do here, but I think that criterion is objective. What we are looking for are articles that make the case that this meeting will be important as a subject in 10 years time as opposed to broader treatments like "Donald Trump's {failed} 2024 presidential bid", "Donald Trump" or similar. (Note that if this is not notable for the Donald Trump page itself it is not notable for its own article, so really it should be there first and foremost).
So, looking at these links, CREW is a short current affairs article about this. It doesn't pass muster. Yahoo News uses the word "unprecedented" which is better but it is still current affairs comment, and news sources use that word a lot. Israel (2022) is talking about the Republicans turning on Trump, and the meeting is relevant but supporting the thesis. That argues for notability in the Donald Trump article, certainly. Zitner (2022) says some at breaking point over this. Considering the usual level of hyperbole, that seems rather understated. Suebsaeng (2022) is just news reporting about the event. These are all news reports, and WP:NOTNP applies. Of course, news sources can be reliable for verification, but they are not generally great (and here they are not sufficient) to establish that there is a subject here, the meeting, that will have an enduring legacy as a subject in its own right. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON to establish such. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as much as this event may be notable, this article screams WP:RECENTISM, as is mentioned in the nom. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 00:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rich people having dinner with former president, isn't terribly notable. High profile for their personas perhaps. I can't see this being any different than other dinner Trump has had or will have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is about the former president having dinner with 2 self-described Nazis, not about the president having dinner with "rich people." You seem entirely unfamiliar with the subject of the article. You might learn something by reading it. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
Rich "nazis", one that's off his meds and is spouting nonsense. A mentally ill person doesn't generate media coverage for any reason, they're focusing on his actions. Sensationalism that sells papers or generates clicks, is what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources used aren't even about the meeting, but about the personalities of the different people involved, this appears to have been strung together from a bunch of unrelated facts to attempt to tell whatever story this might or might not represent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trump does have a habit of turning non-news into news through his inability to disavow people. IMO what makes this event notable is the likely fallout, and the symbolism of a modern U.S. president being allegedly "very impressed" with a Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi, who he then fails to even condemn. It's not about the knives, forks, food, and tablecloths — i.e. the dinner itself, but about the political significance. DFlhb (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Aside from the NOTNEWS arguments, this is the most obvious failure of the WP:TENYEARTEST I've ever seen. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: have any of you actually read “10 year test” or the recentism article as a whole? With all due respect, I do not think that you have. The 10 year test does NOT purport to describe a “test” or criterion for deleting articles. Here’s what it says: “Bold textConsider the ten-year test as a thought experiment that might be helpful: Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?” Bold textThe ten year test is not supposed to provide grounds for deleting an article. Closing administrator should toss out all comments that mistakenly cite 10 year test as a reason for deletion. Moreover, I would love to know how these editors have been able to divine whether or not Trump’s Nazi dinner party will be considered notable in 10 years. Is it possible to learn this power? 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
      • Nice try! This is a very funny response. I quote from WP:TENYEARTEST: Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines. Anybody quoting the 10YT is stating that is newsworthy today will not be notable in the future. This meeting has not proven itself to have any enduring notability, which is an example of Recentism, which is the name of the supplement the 10YT is a part of. It supplements policies on notability and WPNOT which most certainly are grounds for deletion. With all due respect, perhaps you should read the guidelines yourself before criticising other editors for misunderstanding them. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me repeat myself more slowly for your benefit, friend. 1) Unless you are able to know the future, you do not know what will be deemed notable in 10 years. As stated in 10 year test, "Wikipedia editors should not pretend to have a crystal ball." Your speculations on such matters are not important and lack any basis in fact. Do you have any evidence that this event will not be considered notable in 10 years? No. 2) Although you sneer, you exhibit almost no understanding of the material you quoted. "Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not." Of course it is possible that content that seems notable at the time might later turn out to not be notable and violate WP:NOT. At no point does this statement say that the 10YEARTEST provides a criterion for deletion of material. Again, how could it? For the 10 year test to provide a test of notability would require our editors to have futurological powers. As is explicitly stated, the 10 year test is merely a thought experiment that might be helpful (and moreover is just a single paragraph in what is itself merely an explanatory essay, not an official policy providing reasons for deletion). It is not a criterion for deletion, nor could it be. There is a lot of sound and fury in your post, but it exhibits almost complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies on deletion, and fails to provide a single policy-based criterion for your recommendation. I know it must be hard for you to be this wrong, but that's just how it is. Tough! 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
          • Having read your other comments on this AfD, I have no interest in discussing this further with you. I will trust the closing administrator will demonstrate greater impartiality and policy understanding than you. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is indeed the kind of thing someone whose claims have been systematically dismantled by the force of the better argument would say. I make a very simple and elementary point. You lack futurological powers, and your inane speculations on this being "the most obvious failure of the 10 year test I've ever seen" have no relevance. The very article you cite explictly states that "Wikipedia editors should not pretend to have a crystal ball." In the future, please try to confine yourself to policy based reasons for deletion, such as claims about the article's verifiability and notability, rather than engaging in unevidenced claims about the unknowable shape of the future. I trust this has been an educational experience for you. Ciao! 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
              • I don't understand why you are being so aggressive towards the other editors here. Calling their comments "inane speculations" and boasting about how you've bested them is not constructive. Eladynnus (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This editor began being aggressive towards me. "Nice try! This is a very funny response." etc It's interesting when someone can dish it out, but can't take it in response. In fact despite their rudeness, I said nothing negative about this editor as a person, but simply pointed out how their arguments badly misunderstood the 10 year test, which does not purport to provide a criteria for deleting articles. Again, just thinking about it logically, the 10 year test (which is a single paragraph in an explanatory essay, not policy) could not possibly provide a reason to delete articles because editors are not clairvoyant and lack the ability to see the future. Articles should be assessed on criteria such as verifiability and notability, rather than unknowable speculations.2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
                SNOW is happening. Oaktree b (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is clearly not a case of SNOW. There are a similar number of Keep and Delete votes. SNOW describes a situation in which almost all votes are on one side. Here we have effectively the same number of votes on each side. I would very much like if the deletes stop intentionally falsely citing policies that clearly do not plausibly support their case. Many thanks, and have a wonderful day! 2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
                  IP 2600:4040:90C5:8000::/64 You have not taken account of WP:NSUSTAINED Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. And Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. This is why WP:TOOSOON applies. This is why all the other policy arguments about recentism also apply. Wikipedia articles are written when notability is already established, they are not kept until it is clear that no notability will ever be established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • with all due respect, you are simply incorrect on this matter. I have taken into account the recency of the event. Indeed, the notability of this event has grown each day since it transpired. Please remember that “Notability is not temporary”. When an unprecedented political scandal like this occurs, when an event has generated this amount of coverage, and has been commented upon by practically every member of Congress, it has cleared the very low bar of notability for events involving a President of the United States. However, I did not comment here to replead my argument, but to request that editors stop misunderstanding 10yeartest, which is not a literal test, not a statement of policy, and not an invitation to peer at your crystal balls and opine on what will be considered important in 10 years. Indeed, the non-policy essay you are citing states as much explicitly! What we SHOUlD be citing here is the actual governing policy page, WP:EVENT, which relevantly states: “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 (as described below).” It is obvious this criterion has easily been met here. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:AC4B:2D83:ECCE:317B (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)- struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/There-being - sock reply to me Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Found an interesting essay on this. :ThalassocraticEmperor (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft, the subject meets the notability criteria but it is not encyclopedic in the current state, it's practically the inverse of WP:NOTWHOSWHO. As many others have mentioned, although I doubt it passes the WP:10YT, it's not particularly relevant for the purposes of this AfD - editors are welcome to test the articles relevance in future. Putting notability of the individuals aside, the article effectively speculates what three individuals discussed over dinner WP:NOTSCANDAL - unless there's some radical story development that makes the content of the article any more than a directory of public opinion it'll remain non-encyclopedic, in which case, it'll end up being SNOW - so just delete it. ~ Chip🐺 14:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/Merge this reeks of WP:RECENT. There is literally an essay [[4]] on this! Merge to Donald Trump, Kanye West or Nick Fuentes. While strange, its exactly what that essay is for! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a poorly-thought-out article creation. A meeting of this nature is not notable, it is just usable as a source for other articles that cover the actions of the alleged antisemitism of the participants. We're pretty much in WP:SNOW territories here, as many of the keeps are by single-purpose accounts and IPs. All in all this is just WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, and the charming and recently-discovered WP:NETRUMP. ValarianB (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "We're pretty much in WP:SNOW territories here, as many of the keeps are by single-purpose accounts and IPs." - I wouldn't go that far, most of the keep !votes are from established editors. Only a few are IPs. I probably did a very poor job at counting, but I see a 3-way split between delete, draftify, and keep. Roughly 16 straight delete, 4 delete and/or draftify, 12 draftify/merge, 17 straight keep, 1 wait. Of course, Wikipedia is not a vote, and the closer will have to evaluate the strength of the arguments and take into consideration if !votes from accounts with little activity or anonymous IPs should be discounted or otherwise weighted less. In any case, definitely not a SNOW delete. A lot of thought will have to go into closing this one. Might even be in no consensus territory.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not there is a consensus for deletion, those numbers clearly indicate a consensus that this subject is not yet suitable for inclusion in mainspace. BD2412 T 18:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, my personal preference is to develop it elsewhere. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A no-consensus would be a bullshit close, as half of the keeps can be outright discarded. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be “bullshit” would be to discard a bunch of votes based on one IP editor’s behaviour. It’s also very established that trying to give recommendations to closers, or to intimate which closes will be accepted or tolerated, and which won’t be, is improper. Closes are founded on the strength of policy-based arguments, as carefully assessed by the closer, nothing more. DFlhb (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this is too recent to justify an article, BUT it is relevant to all 3 of their careers (I mean they already put it in Kanye's article for example). Its wild seeing a WP essay topic form in front of your face Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but open to moving/merging where sensible - While I understand the arguments that this article falls under WP:TRUMPNOT or is an example of 'recentism' (WP:NSUSTAINED), it would be unclear where this information should be moved to (Donald Trump, Kanye West, and, to a lesser extent, Nick Fuentes, are all notable figures with their own pages). Additionally, beyond the clearly apparent notability of this event (a former US President, a politically-vocal billionaire artist & celebrity, and an influential political extremist having a notable dinner together where politics was discussed as a primary point of conversation), it ties into several large topics: the 2024 US election, the current ideological shifting of the two main US political parties, the mainstreaming of white supremacist ideas in the US and on the Web, and the current mental health crisis/career implosion that a celebrity is experiencing. Regardless of whether or not this specific dinner ends up being well-discussed in the future or simply forgotten, it's clearly relevant in showing a chronological view of several topics and could very realistically be mentioned in several places throughout Wikipedia in the future—if not deserving of its own page, the contents should largely still remain, but I can't think of where it'd all be merged into or moved to. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its already on Kanye's wests page for example. This is what "controversies" is for. I would 100% just support a redirect! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

: Strong Keep This is a pretty clear keep, as the notability of this scandal and its importance to the 2024 election is basically indisputable. It would not be better spun off into a larger article. The recency of the event is not a good reason for deleting a well-sourced article on a notable topic.There-being (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC) - struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/There-being Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Importance to the 2024 election is indisputable? That's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Similar to the twitter thing, this is trying to force a whole article out of something that should be a sentence or a short paragraph in each of the appropriate BLP articles. The meeting itself isn't notable, what is newsworthy is a former president associating with people who have expressed openly-racist opinions. Zaathras (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is 4 sentences long, and has less than 5 sources. This article is very extensively sourced and significantly longer. I don't see the comparison. There-being (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
This isn't a eggplant-measuring contest where the bigger refcount wins. This article has been severely bloated with citations to other people's opinions and other ancillary odds & ends, the comparison is to the subject matter itself, i.e. much ado about nothing. Zaathras (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hostility and incivility? The fact remains that the article you cited is a topic that was ignored by the media and thus has very few references as a result and consists of no more than 4 sentences, while this is a topic that has received extensive coverage in reliable sources, thus generating a treasure trove of useful references that have formed the backbone of a reliably sourced article and established notability due to ongoing coverage and reaction. Please keep your outbursts to yourself. There-being (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
There was no hostility nor incivility nor outburst, keep your hyperbole to yourself, all there was here was a poking of a hole in your silly response. The meeting itself is just The Latest Outrageous Thing Donald Trump Has Done. Things that Donald does generate a firestorm of coverage in sources, we here decide what is encyclopedic and what is just news. This is just news. Mention it in the appropriate articles of course, but there's no story to tell about the meeting itself. This isn't Beergate. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say it but you are mistaken. The volume of reliable source coverage here (including interviews with the entire Republican leadership) indicates that the president's meeting with self-described Nazis constitutes a significant political scandal. You poked no "holes" in my response, but, on the contrary, made yourself look silly both with your outburst and your comparison of an extensively sourced article to a 4 sentence stub with no sources. There-being (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
I'm sorry to say it but you are mistaken... I do not believe so, but we all shall find out at the close. :-) Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding of policy. (Note, as mentioned above, that I'm the initial creator of the article.)

Official Wikipedia policy for WP:EVENT is the following:

1.) Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. This article passes WP:GNG in spades. Additionally, according to news published by Axios today, it will also be an instance of WP: LASTING and WP: EFFECT. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. It's also important to note that it states: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. This explicitly rules out the most common justification being used for removal. (And this meeting seems to have clearly met it already.)

2.) 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. Clearly met. The event has received significant, international attention and has been widely covered on almost every major news network constantly for the past two weeks. It's also received comment from historians, political scientists, foreign politicians, majority and minority leaders of both the House and Senate, and the President of the United States. (as described below).

A multitude of sources have covered it in detail - including Yahoo! News, The Washington Post, Religion News Service, and many, many, many others.

3.) Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.

4.) Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Throughly discredited by sources. As of November 6, 2022 — two weeks after the fact — the meeting is still frontpage news on a majority of American news outlets, including Axios (here) and (here), The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, Vice, Salon, Politico (here) and (here), National Review, NPR, Truthout, and Yahoo! News. One can debate the exact details of what merits notability for events, but it is now extensively abundant that this article meets the criteria of notability, including that of WP:10YT. This will almost certainly be memorable in ten years and is clearly not a WP:ROUTINE event.

Additional problems with proposed consolidation into each figure's page:

Instead of keeping the page: other editors have suggested merging the article into the Donald Trump and Kanye West pages.

This has its own problems. The current articles for Donald Trump (417,202 bytes) and Kanye West (333,646 bytes) are already among the longest on Wikipedia. Yet, merging the articles would require us to somehow both simultaneously preserve the overwhelming majority of the notable information contained within the article. In this case, editors are suggesting something that's frankly quite impossible. There's simply no way to easily consolidate the multitudes of information that are already existent on the situation. (And is rapidly growing everyday.)

The suggestion would almost certainly lead to a majority of *important information* contained within the article to be permanently lost.

Other misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy:

Firstly, Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT is explicitly not Wikipedia policy or a criteria for determining AfD's. As the lead of itself states: ...This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Secondly, even if Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT was policy, it still would not be applicable in this case. Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT is simply a reaffirmation of existent Wikipedia policy. Stating that 1.) A lot of chatter on politics Twitter is neither reliable nor secondary. If no "real" media source has covered this latest outrage, stop there. 2.) Wikipedia can't cover it either. If there are at least some news stories talking about the issue... it depends. Was this an actual policy change, or just everyday celebrity churnalism? Are the sources heavily partisan ones (far-left, far-right, or opinion blogs)? 3.) Even if there is media coverage, if it's passing insubstantial coverage, consider leaving the topic alone, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. None of these sentences apply to the article. Editors seem to be using the concept of Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT to argue that there's an exceptional criteria for notability for articles related to Trump. That's simply not the case. Nor is it argued by Wikipedia: TRUMPNOT. As mentioned above in my initial comment on the AFD: this seems like a clear keep. It passes WP: GNG with flying colors. It will almost certainly pass WP: LASTING and WP: EFFECT. Ex cetera, Ex cetera, Ex cetera, Ex cetera.

Does it clearly meet the criteria of WP:DEPTH? Yes. Does it clearly meet the criteria of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? Yes. Does it clearly meet the criteria of WP: DIVERSE? Yes.

As I mentioned before, this seems like an extraordinarily slam dunk case to me. KlayCax (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KlayCax:, you have made your point repeatedly. Several experienced editors do not agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As shown by the article's edit history, I've only made three major posts/responses about the matter. (And cast one vote.) One of them was my original post. One was a response. The other the above. All of them were in light of updated information. It's Wikietiquette that editors should respond in a new comment than retroactively alter edits in AfD's that are multiple-days-old. The fact that "several experienced editors do not agree with your interpretation of the guidelines" is precisely why I replied to their concerns above. Comments after casting a vote are normative and in line with Wikipedia editing. Since many of the suggested arguments were not mentioned at the time I originally responded, it was needed.
As mentioned in the guidelines: 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.. So the number of comments I make is irrelevant to the final decision made. Ultimately, it's the strength of the arguments that matter. Not the numerical tally of the votes. Thus, it's not my intention to WP:BLUDGEON. Like other editors here who have made multiple comments/responses - there's nothing illegitimate about making multiple comments within reason.
I've only commented on a small minority of votes. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just added a monstrous variably-colored text wall, formatted differently from the normal comment flow to make your opinions (appear) more prominent. This is beyond bludgeoning the process and into obliteration. So please, for your sake and ours, it is time to back off. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps read WP:BLUDGEONing? To bludgeon is to constantly repeat an old argument without addressing new criticisms. This post is the contrary; it's the most comprehensive attempt so far to address new !delete arguments. If you’re going to quote an essay to question an editor’s conduct, I’d instead quote WP:AADD and especially WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which encompasses a great many one-liner !votes so far (and sadly, especially the !delete ones). If some people cite an essay (RECENTISM, NOTTRUMP) as justification to delete (and for quite a few, without presenting any arguments), and someone attempts to present arguments for that essay not applying, it's hard to fault that as nonconducive to a constructive discussion! DFlhb (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONing is, more generally, to "dominate the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view"; repeating one's arguments is only one common example. This WP:WALLOFTEXT eyesore could have been much more succinct, and yes, lots of points have been addressed previously and didn't need to be repeated. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guy with the Wall of Text is right, though. They've made the best arguments in the entire thread, and it's not close. There-being (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
+1 Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, seriously, knock it off. This isn't social media, you don't gain or give status with upvotes.... ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh! My my, getting testy that the intellectual bankruptcy and manifest lack of policy basis of the "delete" votes has been exposed, are we? Again, within the entire thread this comment does the best job of identifying the relevant governing policies and the proper policy outcome. It's a good thing this isn't a vote, since that means the delete votes don't count because they all consisted of erroneous appeals to non-governing policies, as the above comment adequately explains. There-being (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
Please be mindful of your tone, @There-being:. You've been here fairly recently, we assume good faith in one another. You are coming off as very condescending. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, discussions are resolved through WP:CONSENSUS. At the same time, you can't simply say "the delete votes don't count because they all consisted of erroneous appeals to non-governing policies", because others do not agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. It's not helping your argument. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It may also be worth re-iterating, just as a general comment for people on all sides of the issue, that if anyone has inadvertently left a !vote while logged out, and then a second one after they logged in, they might like to voluntarily strike the errant extra !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Views of Kanye West#Donald Trump–Nick Fuentes meeting. The topic of this article is covered there. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't need its own article, could easily belong somewhere else, such as where the user above has suggested.GeorgeBailey (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete easily covered elsewhere in their respective articles, every meeting of controversial politicians does not need a Wikipedia article. EoRdE6(Talk) 01:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge likely into a section under Donald Trump, Nick Fuentes, etc., for the same reason as the others. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say keep, this episode has been the most talked about things in US politics for the past couple of months, many politlical leaders of both parties have talked about it, and it might also have major political influence during the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries and the 2024 U.S. presidential election. This will be a major political event in the US history. I say Keep.La lopi (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The meeting happened two weeks ago. Kstern (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALLing on importance of events is not a reason to keep something.soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/merge Initially I held off voting as AfDs tend to result in articles being improved/rescued during the discussion. However, after over a week of discussion I see this article is still more about the reactions than anything else, which says to me this is a clear case of WP:NETRUMP. This article could easily be condensed into a few sentences and merged elsewhere. — Czello 16:04, 8 December 2022 (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/Nick_Fuentes,_Donald_Trump,_and_Kanye_West_meeting&oldid=1126371776"