Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump orb

Trump orb

Trump orb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear. WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to create this article yet, as it is not clear if this meme will become a notable one. There is no need to speculate about that. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ceosad (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol, the WP:CRYSTALBALL argument is quite appropriate here. ^^ --SlvrKy (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is already part of contemporary history, despite various attempts at deleting/revising it. If someone argues this not belonging to Wikipedia according to some guidelines, then those guidelines are wrong. I don't think this being the case here.Crocobauru (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Note The above user has ten edits on their account. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Glowing orb. Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom; this is another "whatever Trump did today must have a Wikipedia page" article. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need to create an article for this. If it stays in the news we can create a new article. Sjö (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Note. "It is not clear if this meme will become a notable one" isn't true -- it is already highly notable. There are extensive -- and I mean lengthy and detailed -- pieces about this phenomena in the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the two other New York papers, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Newsweek, and other highly notable reliable sources, with more coming in every hour.

You know, I've seen some articles rejected recently on the grounds "OK article, good arguments for keeping, and most participants wanting to keep, but sadly must delete, as does not meet WP:GNG and WP:GNG is policy that must be followed" (it isn't, but you do see that). Well the converse is also true. If we're going to treat WP:GNG more like policy that must be followed, it works both ways, I would think. This article, with extensive coverage in many of the biggest, most notable, most read/watched media entities on the planet, not only meets WP:GNG but smashes it to pieces and bathes in its blood while screaming a victory song. (So to speak.) I would guess that this article has more proof of notability than easily half of our five million articles.

There are five articles (including this one) in Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 and we more than a third through 2017. So at a guess let's say we end up with 20 or so articles in that category (which seems a reasonable number of articles for a category like that). This one will be one of the twenty, and rightly so, just based on coverage so far (assuming there isn't a meme explosion on the latter part of the year).

Yes I get that it is recent. Sometimes things happen fast. That is why nominator's statement "The page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear" isn't accurate. Significant coverage appeared very quickly. The argument that I think you want to make is "Well, but who knows if this has staying power? Maybe it is ephemeral" Sure maybe, but it your crystal-ball gazing to say "This highly notable event will be unnotable in 20 years". You don't know that. Notability, once established in the historical record, is hard to erase. Yevdokim Zyablovskiy (1763–1846), once notable, is now utterly forgotten. So? Keeping a record of stuff that has been forgotten is part of our remit.

Update, here is the Hindustani Times out of New Delhi coming on line. The Boston Globe and CNN have also picked this up -- again, extensive full-length articles, not passing mentions.

Nomination is completely out of order, to be honest. WP:GNG Notability is established beyond any doubt. Only argument for deletion is "may become unnotable in the future" and I suggest a nomination be made when and if that does happen rather then nominating on the guess that it might happen. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment if Trump sneezed during a speech, there would be at least three major newspaper sources covering it. There's (rightly) no coverage of press memes from earlier, such as Trump referring to Chuck Todd as "Sleepy Eyes". Both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON are reasons to delete this article independent from "notability" concerns. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If you've read WP:TOOSOON or know anything about it beyond its title, you know that WP:TOOSOON simply says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". That's not the issue here. There are plenty of sources. The essay actually says the opposite of what you seem think it does... Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, any coverage within 24 hours is effectively a primary source; it's too soon for a secondary source to exist on the topic. Perhaps WP:TIND is what I should be referencing. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, IMO the primary sources for a meme are the meme-carriers itself (tweets, mostly). Articles about this in Time magazine and the Atlantic and the New York Times and... well, a lot of people. RT (Russia Today) has lit up, along with the Irish Times and there's already lot of Indian coverage, and of course Australia. Lots of areas like non-Anglophone Europe, and Africa and East Asia, we're still waiting to see. Anyway, these are secondary sources. I mean, OK, it's been 24 hours, so are they good now? We're already seeing further-downstream references in the new section "Spread to political discourse".

Yes, OK, I read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Yes, that's more like it. It's good advice. It's an essay with reasonable point of view which I can see paying attention to. My judgement in this case is that's it a service to reader to bring this article on line fairly quickly, since people do turn to us to get a quick overview of notable things. It's a judgement call. I notice that that essay also has a section "View two: Don't rush to delete articles"... I would say that this article is notable right now. Down the road, it may have to be edited quite a bit, depending on how things shake out in the longer term. Another 2017 meme article, Nevertheless, she persisted, is continuing to evolve. So we'll see.

Compare to 2017 meme San Escobar. That also was created with a couple days of the event. It seems a worthwhile article. That event was in January. So I don't know. But President Trump is far more notable in the Anglosphere than the Polish Foreign Minister. But maybe that article should also not exist... I would not be surprised to see someone, six months from now, writing something referencing the glowing orb in a major paper. In that case we should have this article so people can look it up. It's possible that this will drop off the edge of the table, that is true. We'll know more before the AfD is out. Possibly waiting on the AfD should have been done. And yeah 10-20 years from now, it might be very obscure. Might be. But we already have a lot of articles on extremely obscure topics that are far less well documented than this -- random hills, chemical compounds, extinct beetles, 18th century sailors, and so on -- and this is considered OK. Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I definitely support keeping Nevertheless, she persisted. I would probably support a second AfD on San Escobar. Perhaps it will be clear which category of meme this is by the end of the week. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. I agree that Nevertheless, she persisted clearly has legs that put it in a higher category; I'm not trying to tie this article to that one. To some degree its a matter of taste, I suppose. I mostly write serious articles about serious subjects, but I've done a few meme articles and I don't mind us documenting memes. Even if it doesn't have legs it's already notable. I have no problem if Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 grows to a dozen or more, in which case this maybe ought to be one. We're a large encyclopedia and serve a wide audience. This article is much better documented than... I just hit the "random" link ten times, and this article is far more extensively documented than any of them, and longer than nine of them... and possibly more notable than any of them. An actor, a person who was "the keeper of several lifeboat stations", several extremely obscure bugs... a Polish village with a population of 255... Yemeni political party, that is more notable. We sure have a lot of obscure stuff here. Doesn't bother me. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Not only is the article is extensively cited, it speaks to the optics which can befall an international presidential journey, and it is a spectacular meme in its own right. kencf0618 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong delete - It is just news. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete A perfect example of WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, reading pages pointed to rather than than just relying on their titles is recommended. We just went over this with WP:TOOSOON which essentially says "wait until there are reliable sources"... OK here is what WP:NOTNEWS says: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", although "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion", and then it drills down with four bullet points. #'s 1 (no original reporting) and 3 (we're not a Who's Who) and 4 (we're not a diary) pretty clearly don't apply, leaving #2 as the only possibly germande guidance. It says

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.... Wikipedia is also not written in news style.

I mean, it's fairly general... "most' newsworthy events do not qualify... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", so it's not a blanket proscription against recent events. And then the example, the only example, it gives of the kind of stuff we don't want is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which has nothing to do with this article... It does say "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", which, fair point. Enduring notability is difficult to know, nor is guidance given over whether "enduring" means 1 year, or 10, or 100... 2017 Manchester Arena bombing now exists and that is event is even more recent than this one. If WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article it probably applies to that one too. In ten years which of these two events will be more notable (outside Manchester)? It is hard to say... essentially citing W:NOTNEWS proves nothing, and can be countered with WP:NOTPAPER which says there's "no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover"

Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is averaging 334 pageviews over the last nine months, and that was almost 40 years ago. For some reason there was a spike to 4,250 views on March 6th -- probably in response to a mention somewhere. Is this article going to average 334 page views with an occasional spike 40 years from now? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. The rabbit incident was pretty obscure. 40 years ago is someone going to write "this reminds me of the Trump orb thing", sending readers looking for info here. Which they won't get if we delete it.

It comes down to opinion and one's idea of what we are trying to do here, really Your opinion is that we should provide readers less information than we do, at least in this case. OK. Fair enough. Honestly, though, I wish when good articles like this are deleted we could at least replace them with a banner, something honest like this:

I don't see the upside to deleting it in the first place, though. I would like to see one person explain to me "It would be a service to our readers and enchancer their experience here if, when looking for information on this topic they find nothing, because _________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Because it is an editorial decision of an encyclopedia. Having too many unnotable fluff or vanity pages would make finding compact and useful information more challenging. Deleting excessive Trump-related articles is useful in that regard. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ceosad (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The existence of one article doesn't impinge on accessing others. The existence of this article doesn't make it harder to get to Corneal-cerebellar syndrome, which has two (or four) special-interest references and averages 1 reader a day. This one has 30 notable general-interest refs and is averaging 7,800 views a day. I don't go after that article, obscure as it is, waving WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or whatever, because the Wikipedia is a big project and big encyclopedia with many readers with a very wide range of interests and needs. We're a team here. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - I see enough to pass Wikipedia:GNG, which contradicts the reason for nomination. Isingness (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom; Ask youself this question: Do you seriously want Wikipedia to be a chronicle of every 15 minutes of his presidency and make Trump unavoidable on even Wikipedia? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Last I checked no one was required to read the article if they don't want to. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep; yes it's been covered many times by reliable sources. MB298 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's some roundup article of trump Trivia for it to be merged to - on its own I think it's a little too fine grained. Alternatively is there an article for the fakey looking mission control thingummy it's a part of? Perhaps that should have an article. Artw (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

On review, and it's hard to believe I am saying this, weak keep, as the article appears to be strong enough to stand on its own merits. Would not object to a merge to Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology if that ever gets an article. Artw (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep "as it is not clear if this meme will become a notable one"- guess again, it is! :-) Notable event, and now referenced with it's own Meme. Seems to have enough to pass Wikipedia:GNG. Possibly substantiated from it being a rather bizarre, visual meme, but also in the context of the actual event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- an unfortunate photo op / nn meme. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - it is the gift that keeps on giving. Bearian (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Per the aforementioned rationales, I am tired of seeing garbage tier memes and WP:RECENT flooding this website.--Catlemur (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. With all due respect, who cares what you're tired of? I don't go after your articles such as Macedonian Mule Corps on the grounds that it is about a profoundly obscure gaggle of illiterate flea-bitten mule skinners from a backwater of the Empire carrying soup cans for a doomed army on a forgotten front in a stupid war, do I ? This is not even considering Düsseldorf Cow War ("Casualties: 2 Civilians + Herd of Cows") and so forth.

I don't go after those articles because it's a big project with a lot of editors interested in a lot of different things, and a lot of readers with a lot of different interests and information needs. FWIW this article is averaging 3,500 page views a day even though it's not indexed, while Düsseldorf Cow War is averaging 2. We are supposed to be a team, and how about you work on articles that interest you, and I'll work on articles that interest me, and together we will build the world's greatest encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Did you even read the articles before leaving this comment? "The Corps were dissolved in March 1919, by that time 12288 men had served in the unit or approximately 20% of the Cypriot male population between the ages of 18 and 39". As for the Cow War it was a major political event, however it seems that the internal politics of the Holy Roman Empire are simply beyond your comprehension. What did you expect? Of course people have a craving for dumb memes instead of military history. I refuse to follow your sophisms and help turn this place into some sort of Huxleyan meme dump spiced up with clickbait. Content that interests you does not belong here, there other websites where your expertise would be more than welcome.--Catlemur (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't read the articles, no; I scanned them. I didn't read them because I'm confident that they are useful articles, just as this one is. Call me crazy, but I even believe that articles such as Pachytegos (one barely-referenced sentence about some extinct and forgotten lifeform) have a place here. Why not? What you don't seem to understand is that the existence of one article does not not impinge on another. We are not limited to 40 bound volumes where one article pushes out another. Even if articles like this draw readers whom you personally would cross the street to avoid, so what? It's no harm to the project. The attitude "I think my articles are great -- history, yay! -- but I'm going to try to delete your articles -- current events (or moth taxonomy, athletes, villages with 42 inhabitants, individual buildings, chemical compounds, whatever), boo!" -- just leads to the war of all against all. There's no upside that I see, and "You kids get off my lawn" is not an actual argument. Herostratus (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NOT. Lets end it at that.--Catlemur (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral Speed74 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Riyadh Summit 2017 is a potential merge target, though that article may have its own issues. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep because none of the alleged policy-based reasons for deleting stand up to scrutiny. It can beggar belief sometimes what the media chooses to make notable, but it is what it is. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Andrew D. (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not Know Your Meme. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess, but on the other hand Category:Internet memes has 712 articles plus 13 subcategories with hundreds more -- so, along with being a gazeteer of populated places, a compendium of obscure historical events, a list of moth species, a database of comic book characters, an atlas of landforms, a collection of chemical compounds, a biographical dictionary, and very much else, maybe it is a documentary compilation of 21st century cultural nonsense. Oh well. It's a large publication, that's for sure! Anyway, if you're against this -- not sure why you want to pick on this subject and not get to work clearing out the articles on ultra-obscure lichen species, but whatever -- I don't know if picking out this article, with 39 refs to in-depth coverage in many of the more famous publications in international news journalism, would be the place to start. Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This article just looks ridiculous. I would not be opposed to mentioning the meme in a section within an article related to the event at which the photograph was taken. Adlerschloß (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Riyadh Summit 2017 would be the most suitable one for a Merge, considering that we do not have an article for the Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology (Etidal). That would be fine for me too per WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the article does not "look ridiculous". It's large enough (22,000 bytes), properly divided into sections, has a couple photos, has 42 refs properly formatted of which easily 3/4 of are to substantial coverage in reliable sources. It's written in acceptable prose, describes facts properly, and each fact is tied to a reliable-source ref. There's no apparent bias, no BLP violations, easily meets WP:GNG... what more do you want? It looks like something that could at least be considered to begin to approach Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

I think what you probably mean to say is the subject of the article is one that you, personally, do not care to read about, which is a different thing. My go-to in these WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments in this discussion is to say "I don't read your articles but I also don't try to to delete them". You don't write many articles -- you do other things around here, extremely needful and useful things I am sure, and thank you for service -- but looking at your last one, I could critique it pretty seriously, but I won't.

So maybe a good compromise here could be, I won't make you read Trump orb, and you won't make me read Beth Kelly, and we'll let them stay in place for those readers who do want to read them. Sounds like good plan for building a large and comprehensive encyclopedia, to me. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry Herostratus, but many of your arguments seem to imply that notability is mostly based on the fact that certain other articles or topics are covered in the Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE for arguments to avoid in the AfD. Certain guidelines also exist on the fact that notability is not inherited from elsewhere (Donald Trump or other memes). Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". So, by demonstrating that Wikipedia contains many hundreds of other similar cases, Herostratus has well-demonstrated that this notable case should be included too so that we are consistent. Other shortcuts which the nominator should be reading include alternatives to deletion and checks, which might have saved us this otiose discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, and OSE (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is an essay and it is only good advice if those other articles shouldn't exist either. There are well over 1,000 articles in Category:Internet memes (about 700 in the main category, 287 alone in the subcategory "Viral videos", 40 in Category:Political Internet memes, and so forth. If you want to say "we should zero all that out" then you have a valid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument -- but that'd be some heavy lifting, to get people to agree on that. If you want to say "Well, we should reduce Category:Internet memes from 1,000 to maybe 200", fine (also heavy lifting, but not quite as heavy), but in that case note that this article has 42 refs and 3/4 of those are significant coverage in reliable famous news outlets, so you'd think that this might be one of the 200 kept.

WP:GNG is a guideline, not an essay; it's not a policy but it is an important and much-used touchstone. On another mission, I just looked closely at 100 random articles. One of them had as many refs as this one, a couple had half as many. Maybe five were "better ref'd" depending on whether you define "better" as broader, deeper, more reliable, more scientific, or what. Probably not even five. I would be surprised if this article wasn't in or near our top 5% of articles that most robustly meet and exceed the GNG. So there is that. Herostratus (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete or merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. This stupid Twitter meme doesn't warrant a page of its own. (Also WP:TOOSOON, etc.) Kakurokuna (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 05:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Smerge and redirect to Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit, where it should receive only WP:DUE coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect a condensed version to Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit. The photo isn't going away. Explaining what the thing was is useful to our readers. But the media attention has been on the level of gag-of-the-day; no sort of consensus appears to have formed around this odd photo as metaphor or symbol.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. There's more than enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability, with nearly every news organization having covered it. NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is scarcely "routine news reporting." Time will tell whether the coverage is lasting, but here we are, 9 days later, and there continue to be news articles written about this on a daily basis. In the last 24 hours we have articles in Time, The Hill, New York Magazine, Newsweek, AOL, Uproxx, HuffPo, and The Telegraph. Also, five European prime ministers just got together and reenacted the photograph. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• delete for now It is impossible to establish the notability of a media event involving the president in less than a week, or for that matter, less than a month. A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS; come back when it is clear that anyone cared in the long run. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this got, and will continue to get, a lot of coverage. People want to know what those photos are about. Let's let them find the info. No opinion of the obscure cow war page. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, someone's WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to be working..... Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but then it works both ways. It's famous now. Isn't it crystal-balling to say "but it won't be in a couple years"? Maybe, maybe not -- Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is is averaging 339 pageviews a day (!). So you never know. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this got me interested, and here's some more (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

For contrast the cow war is getting 2 pageviews a day. None of our rules or practices mention pageviews, but 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.

FWIW This article is at 1,872, but falling fast, but of course that's artificially high. It's falling fast, but it's not indexed (has a __NOINDEX__ tag) I guess because it's at AfD. This prevents it from showing high in Google results, and so artificially (and probably massively) deflates the views -- no one can find it, which is too bad, because its highest usefulness ever is probably now, and I kind of wish people could have a waited a bit to nominate it, for that reason. Oh well.

Another thing about this article is that, unlike ever before, the current president generates something like this about every two weeks (see Covfefe comment below). It's quite a different situation. 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. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off." This is exactly why there is every reason to suspect that this is yet another Trump meme or "scandal" that everybody forgets about in a couple of months, like all the rest. I really don't think that the WP:CRYSTALBALLy comparisons and predictions being made in this AfD are even particularly relevant here, given how... unique this phenomenon is. The man's a ratings magnet too, so we're sure to get more pageviews than Carter's rabbit, but I've never heard of page views being a criteria for notability or inclusion before. Kakurokuna (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Very Strong Comment Years from now, in Trump's apocalypse, little children will ask why did the "Trump Orb" give the three evil men the power to start the fall of society. Only you can decide, by vote, if they will have a wikipedia page to provide that answer. Vote Keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Above, regarding "ridiculous" -- I am not disparaging efforts of editors doing their best regarding sourcing and writing quality on a strange subject. I am saying it looks ridiculous because it is unencyclopedic. So look at what is the top news story today regarding Trump -- covfefe. Should we have a Covfefe article on Wikipedia? (Now wondering if maybe we already do, scared to search...) It seems based on news coverage in major sources describing social media reaction, it would qualify as much as this article. I would not see the logic in not having a Covfefe article if Trump orb stays, actually. Does every silly thing associated with Trump that draws silly social media frenzy that media then reports on for clicks really deserve an article? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Covfefe does exist. Unsurprisingly, it is already being discussed at AfD. Sadly WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS do not offer encompassing advice for handling social media related topics. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL discourages rumours, but that's it. Ceosad (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per NOTNEWS. He took a picture with an orb. The significance of the picture is nil aside from some memes that will fade (or have they already?) with RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS. Seriously? Trump takes picture with orb, and it merits a Wikipedia article. Also, I can think of many memes that have more notability than a stupid "orb" photo. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. Information about the event doesn't need to be sanitized from Wikipedia, but there's no inherent need for a separate article about this. --Jayron32 23:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Good deal of secondary coverage from reliable sources. 44 references in article. Samboy (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Unambiguous Keep per REMOVETHESTICKFROMYOURRECTUM. This magic Orb is the news story of the year. Has everyone here gone mad?( I'd like to request the Trumpkins pipe down; the adults are having a conversation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Is there anywhere Trump related we can Merge this to? There should be a catch-all article for semi-notable stuff Trump did that's not yet worthy of their own article and may never be, that all this stuff can redirect to. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, per the same reasoning I used at the Covfefe AfD, per "WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARS, maybe this should just be put on Wikinews instead? (I know WP:10YEARS talks about the content of an article, but I think it can also be applied to article subjects)". A similar sort of picture is the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich one, but that is still being talked about - here, for example. But I seriously don't think this orb will be being talked about in three years time. (I know it's a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but still, I think it's a useful comparison).  Seagull123  Φ  21:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability concern is right there in WP:10YEARS:

Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might in retrospect violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, another quote from WP:10YEARS which I think is relevant is After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites? Many articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to related issues. ... Any detailed subarticle relating to the event may also be either merged back into the main article or deleted (this includes any article about a subject only notable for that one event).

• Strong Keep OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per above reasons. This is hardly a new or unique concept, just see Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph, for example. Kamalthebest (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017, or better: Create Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology which may actually have a real-world impact beyond funny pictures. — JFG ^talk 08:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• A super doper and extremely vigorous strong delete Why have we become a suppository for every thing this man does. AIRcorn (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per Seagull123. Doesn't have lasting notability. No one will care in 6 months, let alone 10 years.--v/r - TP 16:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The "10 year test" relates to the tone of the writing. It is not a criteria for deletion. This article has 45 references. If the subject is getting attention from the media and from our readers, it's notable. It's not our job to tell readers they shouldn't be interested in a given subject. Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb. Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Whiff of greatness: do you have a source for "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb"? To me that sounds like a classic WP:CRYSTALBALL - Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future..  Seagull123  Φ  12:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  12:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

keep per WP:MAGICORB