Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Trump

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. Opinion is divided between merge and keep, with the latter side arguing that the sources for even the idea suffice to establish notability. That's not something I can decide. But since there seems to be no prospect of outright deletion, any future discussion should take the form of a merger discussion on the talk page. Sandstein 19:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Trump

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

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

Does not exist. WP:NOTNEWS This is about a proposed fort that has been discussed for over a year. It's just an idea that has been floated, and no fort has been approved by any government. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters news media quoted a US official as saying on June 10, 2020 “There is no Fort Trump.”1 The Military Times has reported on June 12, 2019 that there will not be such a fort. 2 — Maile (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile, how is this different from a proposed building project? As long as the sourcing is there, this meets GNG. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah do proposed building projects have an actual plan, and a proposed budget, released to the media? All I see is a president of Poland mentioning in a news conference that Poland would like such a base, and hoping to gain an edge on the possibility by saying they'd name it after the guy who has influence over the Congressional purse strings. And the whole idea seemed to have died when someone asked who would pay for it. If there is one thing we have learned in the last 4 years, it's that what is an "I think we should have ... " one day, becomes old news by the time a new thought passes through someone's head. That, and the fact that some people later deny they ever said such a thing, that something was misquoted, or that the media got it wrong as "Fake News". An American military base in any country is good for that country's economy. But this one appears to not have been much more than wishful thinking. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And the whole idea seemed to have died when someone asked who would pay for it." I'd dispute that assertion. It's been mentioned in 13 separate articles on Google News-indexed sites in the last ten days and officials from both sides have been recorded by RS as recently as 45 days ago [1] saying negotiations are continuing. Chetsford (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Poland–United States relations per User:BD2412. Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like that alternative a lot. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge per WP:MERGEREASON. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing currently in the article looks to pass GNG, the coverage is also lasting. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The GNG creates the presumption that a topic is worth including, but it specifically states that other considerations from WP:NOT may lead to exclusion even for topics that otherwise have sufficient sourcing. So while this is a topic that has certainly been covered in reliable, independent, secondary sources, it is still not appropriate for inclusion because it is essentially a news report. The base does not exist; it's not even clear that the base will exist. All of the content is essentially unrelated to "Fort Trump", and only uses it as a coat rack for general information on US-Polish military relations since 2020. What's salvageable can be merged to Poland–United States relations, but this is essentially a POV fork that gives undue coverage to a recent event. — Wug·a·po·des 20:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think even from an historical viewpoint, the effort to build a permanent base in Poland for US troops is a notable event and something worth have a Wikipedia page on for people researching such things, even if it isn't built, the developments surrounding its plan to be built and the change in strategic focus is notable information. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Poland–United States relations, which includes coverage of military cooperation. BD2412 T 03:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I would have no problem with this option. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record as a Keep !voter (but not speaking on behalf of all Keepers), I oppose this based on our WP:DUP guidance which notes that Merging should be avoided if the resulting article would be too long or clunky. The discrete length of the proposed merge-to article would be overwhelmed by the merger of an article of this size that has the potential to continue to grow. Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the whole article need not be reprinted in the target page. In this case, a one-line sentence would probably be enough. Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect if it ever happens page can/will be created but currently its nothing. Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Even if it doesnt get built, there is already coverage of it. Denzil1963 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are all sorts of proposals for international agreements that have yet to be finalized or are only in discussion phases that, due to coverage, pass WP:GNG. Here are a few examples: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, Multilateral Agreement on Investment, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, Beilin–Abu Mazen agreement, Convention of Chuenpi, etc. As per the article, this is not only (and potentially even less) a literal proposal for a fort, but the colloquial name used to refer to a proposed strategic repositioning of U.S. military forces to Poland and bilateral military framework between the U.S. and Poland. Finally, since the term "Fort Trump" is frequently invoked in media reports without further context, it's reasonable to assume our readers may search for it. With the GNG threshold crested there's, therefore, no policy-based reason for a redirect. The merge proposal is unworkable as the volume of preservable content in this article would easily overwhelm the current Poland-U.S. relations article and would be inconsistent with the commonly accepted guidance described by WP:MERGEREASON. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford I think it is a given that as the article creator, you would want to keep this. But just because a term is bandied about in the news media, does not automatically qualify it to be an article in Wikipedia. This fort does not exist at this point. Your arguments above, while sincere, amount to a news report. Not only is this an article about something that does not exist, it's about something that never will exist. — Maile (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maile. I appreciate your detailed response. In surrebuttal:

amount to a news report Per our WP:NOTNEWS policy, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This is a subject that has received significant, verifiable coverage in RS spanning a period of three years and is, therefore, not covered by NOTNEWS.
This fort does not exist at this point. This is not a policy-based argument so I can't address it directly. However, we frequently cover proposed agreements, compacts, and treaties under discussion if they meet our WP:GNG. See all examples I cited above. Also, based on your references to "this fort", I believe you may not understand the subject of the article. This is not an article about "a fort". This is an article about a bilateral defense framework that is colloquially referred to by the proposed name of a base that would be included in it.

Chetsford (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to a recent addition to the OP [2] by the nom, I'd like to make a responsive note that I'm threading new here for ease of readability. Reuters news media quoted a US official as saying “There is no Fort Trump.” Three days after Reuters reported that it issued a new report [3] quoting a different US official that there would be a "Fort Trump". In Dark Matter we include reports of those who say it does not exist, and those who say it does. These are entirely appropriate subjects for discussion on the article's Talk page. They don't demonstrate how an article meets our deletion policy. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford one thing you and I have illustrated here, is that there is much confusing and conflicting source information on this subject matter. Bear in mind that there needs to be funding to get this off the ground. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. After all the puffery and false information (about every subject imaginable) that has flown about in the last 4 years, I think Wikipedia would do well on this one to hold off. Later down the road, if Congress votes for funding to establish such a base - or funding is signed off on elsewhere - then it can be an article. Right now, it's just chatter in the wind.

I have concerns about a pattern we've seen repeated over the last 3+ years, or even 4 years back to the previous election, is that the individual involved here has himself been the source of much confusing information, often putting others (including foreign dignitaries) up to publicly dropping his name into the conversation in hopes of gaining favor or getting something they want that the public is not informed about. We don't know what conversation ensued between the two individuals before they walked out to that press conference. Right now, the fort is not a reality as of this date. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After all the puffery and false information (about every subject imaginable) that has flown about in the last 4 years, I think Wikipedia would do well on this one to hold off. In general, I like the proposal you've made to adopt a higher threshold than the GNG for American Politics articles. If you propose this at the Village Pump I will most certainly support it. That said, the proposal you're making (which, as I read it, is that we should delete just to be careful due to a pattern of superfluous articles on related topics) is not currently supported by any existing policy and the middle of an AfD isn't the venue to adopt new policies. Deleting an article and erasing knowledge can only be done on WP in response to a fairly limited set of circumstances and we should delete an article because the individual involved here has himself been the source of much confusing information, often putting others (including foreign dignitaries) up to publicly dropping his name into the conversation in hopes of gaining favor or getting something they want that the public is not informed about is not one of those circumstances. Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This proposed Fort has generated a lot of RS coverage and interest, and there is no requirement that a project actually be realised and built for it to satisfy GNG. I don't think a redirect to Poland US relations is an appropriate target for this either. It is not that significant in the context of that page, but also has other significance which isn't to do with bilateral relations between the two countries. I don't see a good reason why the coverage of this notable proposal should not reside exactly where it is. — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has plenty of RS's to meet GNG. Plus it's not exactly uncommon for us to have articles on planned works, even if they don't come to fruition. And indeed we do have several articles on "non-existant" things Father Pat Noise for example, so there is no issue on that front. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. Whether or not it has actually been built or not is irrelevant. Citobun (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect --evrik ^(talk) 16:37, 20 August 2020 (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.