Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R/The Donald

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 no consensus. Although delete and merge together have a slight edge over keep, we don't have consensus here. Merger discussions can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 19:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R/The Donald

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

PROD removed. I doubt this warrants having its own article at this point, and from what I can see, we don't even know for sure if Donald Trump is really involved or it's just satire. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol, once again this subreddit has been mentioned by several reputable news sources, and has even been visited by donald trump himself. at this point it is the largest discussion hub for the candidate and deleting the article would only be censoring the hub. Kabahaly (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Kabahaly (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete: Non-noteworthy. Might bear passing mention in controversial Reddit communities, but not its own article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: controversial reddit communities include blatantly racist, or sexist, or generally bigoted ones. to list this article as one of the controversial communities is like saying that donald trump is a racist or sexist, which goes against wikipedia's neutral POV Kabahaly (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely bears mention in Controversial Reddit Communities, as it is a large source of controversy on Reddit. It says nothing about Trump himself, just the community. IanSan5653 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the community that donald trump himself mentioned and condoned?

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At this point, there doesn't appear to be enough to justify its own article. That could change, but for now, smerge and delete. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see that anyone about has mentioned a lack of existing sources, of which there appear to be a good number. Instead, most of the comments fall into a basic "just not notable" pattern without a proper rationale. The article already has two sources: "How r/the_donald Became a Melting Pot of Frustration and Hate" (Vice) and "Donald Trump to Drop In on Reddit, Where He's Already a Phenomenon" (NBC). In addition to that, I've found the following:
"Active Revolt Against Reddit’s CEO" (Vice) - This is definitely focused on the subreddit itself, not Trump.

"Donald Trump to host Reddit AMA" (CNN) - Brief mention

"From the media to moon landings: Trump takes questions in Reddit AMA" (The Guardian) - About the AMA, but gets into some details of the workings of the subreddit.

"Welcome to the Bizarro World of Trump Supporters on Reddit" (Wired) - Totally focused on the subreddit.

"Some Donald Trump Supporters Are Now Calling Him ‘God Emperor’" (The Huffington Post) - Reporting on events in the subreddit, with some history.

So that's seven sources total, four of which are detailed profiles of the subreddit. That's enough to warrant inclusion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed. Kabahaly (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though personal preference wants a merge and redirect to controversial Reddit communities. The sources provided both here and via a Google search clearly shows that this passes WP:GNG. The subreddit should definately be mentioned on the controversial Reddit communities page, however, regardless of the outcome of this. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's only notable in the context of the current US presidential campaign. Every article about it (all 3 of them, by my count) is tied to Trump as a candidate. I don't see how anyone could add anything to the current page from reliable sources that isn't already there, so a fully fleshed-out article appears to be impossible. Rockypedia (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing at all suggestive of its attachments en independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be better dealt with on other pages. Artw (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the 2016 Trump presidential campaign page, there are sources, definitely enough for inclusion on another article, but maybe not on its own. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rockypedia. Lepricavark (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG pass as demonstrated by Torchiest. SSTflyer 02:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I explicitly oppose a merger, since sources that have been presented allow for a potentially much longer article than what we have now. SST flyer 04:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG, thus qualifying for a standalone article. More sources can be found here. No prejudice against merging to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 § /r/The_Donald subreddit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sources available via North America's link clearly pass WP:GNG. Also no problem with merger though. Lizzymartin (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:NOPAGE. Having sources doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. This is part of the campaign. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (or perhaps Controversial Reddit communities) per Patar knight, Rhododendrites, and, in particular, WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the Trump candidacy article. The sourcing and information provided above show that there is enough for it to meet WP:GNG. Definitely needs to be retained in some fashion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:GNG is just one section of WP:N, what do you make of the article in the context of WP:NOPAGE? WP:GNG isn't the be all and end all of notability. Graham (talk) 21:49, 23 August 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.