Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump-Tsai call

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump-Tsai call[edit]

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

Plenty of citations for the call, but that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. Content should be merged (but probably already is covered) in one of the many Trump articles. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage, see zh:川蔡通話 there are multiple responses to this event and it may be a milestone in the relations of the U.S. and the Asia-Pacific region. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM. Yes, there are reliable journalistic sources about this call. No, we should not have a standalone article summarizing that content. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see (keep-ish) - per Champion, there is ample coverage right now, but we haven't had enough time to judge if it has a major impact on anything yet (I'm guessing we'll have to wait until after Trump takes office to see). There isn't really a clear merge target right now, so I don't think having it around is really harmful. As an alternative, possibly draftify. ansh 666 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merge into Taiwan–United States relations — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic moment for US relations with Taiwan and PRC.LM2000 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In 50-100 years we might then be able to assess how important this one conversation was. Right now, not so much. This is the problem with Wikipedia's willingness to use rely on primary sources, especially journalism. We end up with articles like Khizr and Ghazala Khan borne of contemporaneous reportage which may ultimately end up being seen as pointless distractions. Just because GNG allows it, our efforts should not result in this sort of inclusionism. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much for political events to pass WP:GNG but it's hard to distinguish what's WP:NOTNEWS when you're in the thick of it. I'm not reluctant to !vote keep in this case because this event was the first of its kind since 1979, making it something of a milestone and very likely to pass WP:10YT.LM2000 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While still in progress, I've added content with more reliable English sources and revised the whole article. An article with about 100,000 bytes information on zhwiki is obviously important enough to stay on enwiki as itself. Google those keywords just these days and you can expect there will be more follow-up developments related to this in the future. -- Wildcursive (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic event! -- Wetrace (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of citations doesn't mean that a separate article should not exist either. I don't see why a deletion is needed. --Howard61313 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Abundantly commented event, with truly historical potential. Long and well-researched article in Chinese Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (widely covered historic and notable event). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually I was looking for something on this tonight when I found this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Taiwan-United States relations and Political positions of Donald Trump#Asia. I find the keep arguments entirely unconvincing. We don't keep things because they may be historic. Just because there are plenty of sources doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE, WP:NOTNEWS), otherwise we'd have articles about all of Trump's controversial tweets, each one of his rumored appointments, each controversial thing he said... and, really, everything he does. The WP:GNG requires lasting significance, and even if Trump's political positions weren't ephemeral, we don't have that yet. Is it possible this will be significant in the future? Sure. But if nothing changed over the next four years, retaining the status quo, and they didn't talk again, and nobody talked about this call again, would it still really be worthy of an article as opposed to inclusion in one of the others? Unless you can answer that in the affirmative, we shouldn't be keeping it. We have umpteen articles about Trump and his activities, and plenty of articles about foreign relations that a symbolic phone call can fit nicely into. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Taiwan-United States relations per Rhododendrites. WP:NOTNEWS states, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." WP:PERSISTENCE states: "duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance." I can certainly see an encyclopedic topic of Donald Trump's foreign policy or more specifically Trump's Chinese foreign policy, with this event being a significant part. - --Enos733 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty source. --Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into Taiwan–United States relations. Aspect of that topic. It may eventually grow into an article about relations under the Trump administration, but detailed coverage of this single event veers too much into WP:NOTNEWS territory. Sandstein 10:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources and coverage. It "is" historic but not "may be", and it has enough significance, since it is the first time for a Taiwanese President and a U.S. President or President-elect directly spoken since 1979, which is an important mark of the bilateral relationship, no matter it would have great change or not in the future. It was not just like other Trump controversial thing has said. In addition, you may refer to the Chinese version of this article: zh:川蔡通話.- Peace1 _(talk) at 01:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is clearly a notable milestone. In the long run, I believe this will survive WP:PERSISTENCE. The fact that it is too early to say for sure does not mean it is not persistent. There is plenty of detailed information that belongs in this article, such as how the call was set up and what it means for US relations with both Taiwan and China. If that information were merged into Taiwan-United States relations, it would be too much of a distraction from that article. Instead, it deserves a main-article link from that article. Further, merging this into Taiwan-United States relations ignores that this is equally important to China–United States relations. RichardMathews (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that last part, it's perhaps more important to China-US relations than Taiwan. Hence why I said a lack of clear merge target. ansh 666 19:47, 23 December 2016 (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.