Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:11, 1 June 2017

Covfefe incident

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

Wow. Seriously? This is an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS. f e minist 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. f e minist 09:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the UK's Independent, Daily Mail and Guardian, among many others, disagree. All have it on the splash screen/home page. Mashable and most other popular web magazines have also given it prominence. Against deletion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (then probably Merge to wherever it is we merge the meme-generating minor Trump incidents). Splash pages on newspaper websites is not an indication that something is not news, but as it's still only about 6 hours (all of them night in the US) since this happened it's far too early to know whether long-term this will merit a sentence or an article. The article creation was premature, but given that it was created this deletion nomination is also premature. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I briefly considered waiting a while before nominating this for AfD, but decided to bring this here anyway seeing how Covfefe is salted due to repeated recreation. Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2 is a possible merger target if this is to be mentioned in detail. feminist 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've redirected Covfefe to Covfefe incident (presumably this hadn't happened as those deleting the former were unaware of the latter). That page being repeatedly recreated though still doesn't make this nomination any less premature. It is by definition impossible to tell whether

WP:NOTNEWS applies to something until there is either sufficient information about the subject to make it clear that there is more to it than a flash-in-the-pan news event or that there is no enduring coverage. How long that takes varies, but for something like this it's going to be about 36-48 hours at absolute minimum. Nominations before that time (on NOTNEWS or similar grounds) are just a waste of everybody's time (and sometimes WP:POINT violations, but I don't think that's true here). Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Notable social media event.Dpm12 (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (PDT)
(Agree, KEEP, notable/notorious social media event - and funny! Groogle365 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017
This is a key moment in the Trump presidency, and the article should be kept for historical reasons. The covfefe incident was also a major international news item appearing on the BBC website front page on 31 May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve stewart (talk • contribs) 12:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new account with no other contributions Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If "Ed balls day" isn't worthy of an article, this doesn't even close. It's not particularly funny. Just because a money smashed his keyboard before falling asleep. Seddon ^talk 11:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed Balls day tweet should be its own article. I think the reason it was not wasn't because of notability but for WP:BLP reasons (ie, Ed Balls looks like an idiot). —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable, this page shows exactly what Wikipedia should not be. See deletion discussion of tea lizard for a similar case Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Lizard. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not eligible for an article in an encyclopedia, it's simply not notable. Mellk (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had also PRODed the article as a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. There is no enduring notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as textbook NOTNEWS. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even news. Non-notable twitter fail. Jonathunder (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTNEWS. Ceosad (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Ceosad (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTNEWS - not notable - still developing. This is not what Wiki is for. Can't we do something constructive? Garchy (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTNEWS - not notable - Since when are typo's notable ? even when made by an elected official. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to larger article Twitter activity of Donald Trump. This meets WP:GNG, bigly.[1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: The last point of WP:GNG reads: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not,..." in this case there seems to be a consensus that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand GNG. Many memes and gaffes have notable, lasting affects beyond initial incident, and thus have their own articles that have held up. I agree with the analysis in the link I included from CNN. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/Keep for now: it's a developing phenomenon which may yet acquire greater notability than it has already. —ajf (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internet phenomena, when covered by reputable sources such as the NY Times, CNN, and even ~~the BBC~~ the BBC, have established sufficient notability to get a project article. People are too quick to delete around here. At the very least it should be a redirect to something appropriate, as it will be a word people search for. ValarianB (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ValarianB, I believe you meant to link this article? The "BBC" in your comment is linking to this discussion page we're at. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks, too many tabs open! :) ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog of typos, no matter how prominent the typist. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Make Wikipedia great again. Hektor (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not notable. The media is just playing partisan politics and painting Trump in a bad light as usual. F2Milk (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think this is noteworthy enough for a mention in another article, let alone an entire article of its own. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe. A very obvious case. ETA: I thought the whole thing was just funny at first, but there's a decent "keep" case here; I suspect the best result in the short time is a quick "no consensus" close and we can revisit in a few weeks or months.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, but merits aside, a couple points:

Article easily meets the WP:GNG -- easily, no question. I've seen the GNG as cited as a policy more or less along the lines of "Does not meet GNG and so must deleted regardless of vote or other considerations". The GNG is not a policy, but you do see that. Well but what's sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. If the GNG is to be treated that strongly, then an article like that clearly meets it must be kept (if it doesn't violate other policy like WP:V or WP:BLP etc.) whether we want to or not. It's not a vote -- policy trumps. I don't treat the GNG as policy, but some people do. And if the closer does, he doesn't really have a choice here.

As a general good practice, I wish people would wait a couple months at least before nominating current events articles. Make a not and come back to it. For a couple reasons:

It's a lot harder to judge long term importance when you're right on top of the event; we have to guess. Give it a little time to see how it shakes out so we can make educated votes/comments.
To the extent the article is useful at all, it is most useful near to the event. That's not to say it won't be useful a year from now or ten years from now or thirty -- maybe it will, maybe not -- but even if it is, it is most useful now, to the general public. But (I think that) sending an article to AfD puts a __NOINDEX__ tag on, so it won't come up high in Google results, so the general public can't easily access the article. Could we have a little patience maybe? I wish people would not do this.

Because of all this, even if I didn't think the article was OK on the merits, I would be inclined to vote "Keep, don't do this now, renominate in a few months". Herostratus (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you just listed is all the reasons that this should have never existed, not reasons why it should exist. — Smuckola (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Easily meets WP:GNG" is a good reason for an article not existing? Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying over some stuff I wrote elsewhere... to to some degree this is an "other stuff exists" argument, so how you take it depends on whether you think these other articles should exist, or not. But here goes. Here's some more similar-type articles with pageviews (all are pageviews per day over the last 90 days):

Jimmy Carter rabbit incident - 339 pageviews
George H. W. Bush vomiting incident - 221
Bill Clinton haircut controversy - 56; its just a redirect.
Dick Cheney hunting incident - 681, wow.
Binders full of women - 158
Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph - 179

These are reasonably good numbers. Whether this article will settle at numbers like this we can't know, but why not? None of our rules or practices mention pageviews, but IMO it's reasonable to look at those numbers and figure that the existence of the articles is a service to the public, and that that might matter. Whether it matters or not is matter of opinion.

But that's one article for George W. Bush, one for Clinton. etc. There may be a couple more, but not many. And unlike ever before, the current president generates something like this about every two weeks (see Trump orb etc.); it's quite a different situation (no judgement, just fact. Whether it's the media being silly or its something else doesn't matter. Cause of notability is not our concern.)

Let's see, every two weeks for four years -- that's 100 articles. Eight years, 200 articles. But lots of categories have 100-200 articles or more. But on the other hand, we have separate articles on all the moon landings, but if they were occurring every two weeks, would we still? Well actually we probably would if they were big news and got lots of coverage. It's just a fact that the current president generates "rabbit incident" type news at an extremely elevated rate, and this gets massive coverage.

If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off -- paragraph on page five, "Another train wreck". It's not happening here. We might think it's silly for this stuff to keep getting major coverage, but our job is to document what is notable, not what we think or wish should be notable. This is notable by our own standards as laid out at WP:GNG. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How you can compare the notability of the VP shooting someone else in a hunting accident vs a typo on a twitter post? The media has an obsession with reporting every single thing that Trump does - we should be better than that (see WP:FART). Mr Ernie (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the shooter warning the media Trump's Twitter account will one day rise up and destroy them all. They thought he was half-kidding, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

"The media has an obsession with reporting every single thing that Trump does" -- that is true. My personal opinion is that's it's silly, destructive, and I wish they wouldn't. So? We do not delete articles on the basis of "Highly notable, good article, but I think the subject is silly"... "Highly notable, good article, but the fact that this is notable is destructive to the American and world political system, so delete"... "Highly notable, good article, but I wish it wasn't notable, so delete". We're supposed to report what is notable, not what we wish was notable. See the difference?

President Trump's tweets are notable because they are widely reported. Why they are widely reported is not our concern. But FWIW there's certainly good reason -- they are widely reported (Unlike Obama's; he tweeted too, did you even know that?) because they contain new material. Obama's tweets were carefully considered and part of an overall communication strategy, so they were boring and unimportant (they didn't say anything that wasn't also said through normal channels). Trump's tweets are just objectively different, and so they are treated differently. Ignoring this fact doesn't help anyone. Herostratus (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic, not noteworthy, WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENT WP:UNDUE — Smuckola (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is about as consequential as this presidency has been thus far. -VJ (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a developing phenomenon and I think time is needed to see at what level of notability it ultimately settles at. Shan246 (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and revisit in 1.5-2 months or so to see if there is still significant coverage then. This may well become a notable neologism, or the story may die down and disappear. Right now it is hard to tell, although there are signs pointing that the former is more likely than the latter. There is an article in The Guardian today titled Covfefe is a word now. Deal with it. on this point. Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe per WP:GNG. Compy book (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was shocked to see this being shared on my Facebook timeline. We are not some sort of blog or gossip site posting every trivial nonsense that happens in the world. Mentioning this in Trump's article is one thing, but having a separate article just for this is a definite no-no. Again, please delete for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation. Reh man 15:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant covfefe in reliable sources. —anemone projectors— 15:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG and clears the NOTNEWS hurdle as demonstrated by sources both in the article, at this AFD, and through a Google News Search. It's hardly routine or mundane, and this tweet got far more coverage than typical Trump tweets. Really there should be an article about Donald Trump's use of social media that can collect all incidents of this type. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Since my redlink got created, I'll have to say with my keep vote, but would prefer merging content to the social media article over deletion for now, to wait and see how converage unfolds. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covfefe is a perfectly cromulent and well-sourced article. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by ValarianB, Milowent, and Patar_knight. I also support the creation of Donald Trump's use of social media article (per suggestion of Patar_knight). This tweet belongs to :Wikiquote, and the word should have its separate entry in Wiktionary, too. :-) -Mardus /talk 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mardus and Patar knight: This is what I suggested too, above, but Twitter account of Donald Trump. I'm not sure if he does other social media, but the point is, it warrants its own article regardless of the title. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is Wikipedia for Pete's sake, not Know Your Meme. Can we have the slightest element of class and not focus on every single little tabloid thing? Someone tweeted something dumb/misspelled. It's not worthy of a wiki article. 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC) MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet memes has about 1,000 articles. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this was a one-time, admittedly funny mistake that gained some fun momentum. However, it's hardly worthy of its own article. I would support creating a Social media use of Donald Trump article, though, since this topic (mainly his use of Twitter) has been a matter of discussion in many reliable sources. κατάστασ η 15:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia:Recentism effect of a relatively minor twitter typo/mistake. Wikipedia isn't a NPOV news outlet —72 _talk 15:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth for 1000 years, what a load of crap. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 16:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. ed g2s • talk 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and everything else said above. Seriously a made up word in a tweet? This is an "incident" that needs to be covered? Just let the Internet mock it and forget it in 24-48 hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. I explicitly think that a NC close is the best outcome here. Especially regarding this sort of high-profile event, the project does not have (and perhaps cannot have) a good distinction between material that should be excluded under NOTNEWS and material that arises from current events but that does warrant inclusion. In any case, I strongly encourage the eventual outcome to be the one proposed by several editors above: an article at social media use of Donald Trump, use of Twitter by Donald Trump, or some comparably-titled form. Individually, these are de minimis news stories; in the aggregate, they are a legitimate topic. And, more importantly, the umbrella topic is one that is recognized and discussed in reliable sources, so bundling the content in this manner will not constitute original research. I consider it bad form to advocate a merge to a nonexistent target article at AFD, however (should that change before the timer on this discussion expires, consider this instead to be a !vote for the merger outcome). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) This has only been open for a few hours, (2) the strength of arguments matters more than a tally, so the fact that this clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia should outweigh the "it's funny" or "being reported in the news" arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. We can't have articles on every sensational news headline about Donald Trump. If we keep this, we're on the track to having half the articles on Wikipedia relating to Trump. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have changed my opinion above to merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Thank you very much for starting the article. I think most people who wanted to delete would reconsider that "covfefe" has a place on that article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it. WP is not a newspaper, and should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. And this isn't even a story -- he fell asleep while trying to type "coverage". Merge it into the Trump article if it's not forgotten by the weekend. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not use an encyclopedia to document what all the fucking morons cared about in 2017. Deli nk (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: just give it a couple of days to see if more references and cultural impact can be added. It's not that hard... Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fafleh Keep it for a few days, to see what sort of arguments we get, then delete it. By then, it'll be a tired joke, even to those who liked it today. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

Delete this article, I mean. Nothing against the word living somewhere else on Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. While it may not be WP:NOTNEWS, judging from the headlines this morning, it's certainly not justified as a single article. Nerdwiththehat^Talk 17:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media or Donald Trump tweets. Even cromulent doesn't have its own article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we do not do running news reporting and commentary, and frankly there's not much to say here except the tweet and the reactions to it. Sandstein 17:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited to nearly two dozen reliable sources, a testament to notability. Comparable to Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph and Binders full of women. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's always a rush to make articles. This is just a silly news story for one day. The life cycle will be about 24 hours tops. This will have no lasting impact. WP is not the news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Despite the large flurry of coverage right now, it is way too early to determine whether this will last or not. Deletion is bad because people will be looking up this word on Wikipedia and see a redlink and simply try to create it again, leading to headaches for everyone. If merged, and coverage continues in the future, the article can be branched back out. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I know about this article, I say merge into Donald Trump's use of social media. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please God Delete - This can't be real. Are we making an entire page because of one typo on twitter? I understand that social media picked up on it but in that case will we have a page for every meme that comes along? Help us all El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Now - It will probably need to be merged or removed later, but no need to remove it now. Let's wait to see if this remains a notable event or not. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Funny things Trump says on Twitter are reported as routine coverage WP:NOTNEWS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. A separate article could be spun out later if it meets WP:GNG, but it's too early to tell yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pls. Are we going to document every time he farts as well? Mention it in Donald Trump's use of social media can work for me but this is utter bullcrap. TBloemink _talk 19:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media --Jtle515 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge this crap. Holy Goo (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. The fact that a German embassy explodes at roughly the same time, and yet a typo on Twitter is on the front page of every newspaper, accurately sums up what I think of the argument that it has coverage. Blatantly unencyclopedic excuse for somebody to get yet another negative Trump article on Wikipedia (and, by extension, Google). See WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:FART. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. The content is pertinent to illustrate how the Donald Trump uses social media, so it's a good fit for merging. --Dereckson (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, if you're looking at what matters for AFD. Per User:Herostratus's comment above, this easily meets wp:GNG. Like Battle of Mosul (2016–present), this is a current topic and Wikipedia's article can possibly become one of the leading news stories in Google News or other collections of current news articles. Urgent demands that this be merged or deleted don't make sense. After some months or years it may or may not be appropriate to merge, quietly, but this is obviously not something to be forced now. --do ncr am 20:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the very outermost, this warrants a single brief line in an existing page. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then merge. While this is still popular, lots of people are gonna be Googling "covfefe", so it's more practical for it to have its own WP article. After it's died down, (in probably a week or two), merge and redirect to Donald Trump's use of social media. It won't need its own article after Donald Trump does his next thing, whatever it may be. 1.618033 golden^{sqᴉɹʇuoɔ} 20:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing back to KEEP. Sean Spicer's explanation was so bizarre it's going to double the life of this. I agree with media pointing out this incident is symbolic of Trump's presidency. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It pays for Wikipedia to keep up with current events. Andrewrutherford (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that it is much later in the day, the media coverage has only increased. A lot of the people who voted "Delete" earlier did so after much less media coverage. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody expected it to not last the day. The first day is when everything gets hotter. Third day's when it fizzles. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

It got much bigger because Sean Spicer, instead of just saying it was a typo, said with a straight face that "certain people" knew what it meant. So it blew up again now that he's actually indicating the president is sending out cryptic messages via Twitter, and that insanity (that they are not even allowed to admit Trump made a typo) represents massive dysfunction in the White House. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. I suspect that hardly anyone will remember this in a week. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. Per WP:NOTNEWS, this is an event that is part of an encyclopedic topic, but is not in and of itself encyclopedic. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 22:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is still part of History regardless of it being on social media. Everything our president does is worthy of being documented for historical record keeping.
Covfefe. (keep) This article records a seemingly major event in our nation's history (?) DmitryKsWikis (Dmitry K.) (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfefe, for now. I think it'd be better to have this discussion in a couple weeks' time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. The information does not need to be sanitized from Wikipedia, but there's not enough non-redundant content to support a stand-alone article. --Jayron 32 23:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Donald Trump sneezed, somebody would create an article. This is a sneeze. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a practical matter, this is either a Snow Keep, or we need a new Speedy Delete reason for new articles on topics on current events in American politics (which fall under the post-1932 rules). Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong covfefe. Has reliable covfefe in secondary sources, and also tertiary sources that describe the covfefe of covfefe. Rigley (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 *'''Delete''' if Donald Trump sneezed, somebody would create an article. This is a sneeze. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 23:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' As a practical matter, this is either a Snow Keep, or we need a new Speedy Delete reason for new articles on topics on current events in American politics (which fall under the post-1932 rules). [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 23:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Strong covfefe'''. Has reliable covfefe in secondary sources, and also tertiary sources that describe the covfefe of covfefe. [[User:Rigley|Rigley]] ([[User talk:Rigley|talk]]) 00:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)