Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting

[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)

This article is well meaning, but it is born of WP:RECENTISM. The dinner itself fails WP:NEVENT as it is unlikely to pass the WP:10YT. Kanye and Fuentes' antisemitism and Trump's ongoing campaign are ongoing issues that can be documented at their own pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:DELAY applies. This news story is only a few days old; stand-alone notability can not yet be inferred. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draft- or user-ify. It's just a meeting. Things that were said at the meeting can be documented on the appropriate pages. It can't currently be established that it was a groundbreaking, historically important meeting that deserves a dedicated article. --174.95.87.151 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Accidentially double posted. See my main comment below.] The subject clearly meets the criteria of notability. It's clear that this has significant, long-term repercussions from a variety of angles. It's impossible to summarize the events of the article in each individual article's page. Multiple foreign leaders and almost every major American political figure has commented on it. This isn't to mention the impact on Kanye's legacy and the impact on the American Christian and white nationalist movements. KlayCax (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but how can it be clear that it has significant and long-term repercussions? It happened last week. Any repercussions beyond commentary will not have occurred yet. --174.95.87.151 (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my recommendation. Why delete and lose the work already done, when we can make it a draft and have it ready if/when it establishes notability? --174.95.87.151 (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snap Keep At this point, the balance of evidence indicates that this is notable event that will have a relevant historical impact on the 2024 election, like a number of other political scandals, is garnering interest, and provides useful contextual background for the current election, popular culture, and the global far-right/anti-semitic movement. Should the passage of time bear out your WP:CRYSTALBALL Prediction that this event will totally fade from interest, it will be simple enough to remove it later, whereas removing it now deletes the article at the precise time when people are most willing and able to contribute to it, thus permanently reducing the usefulness of the article. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deleting this article does not forbid the topic from being covered at Kanye West, Donald Trump, and Nick Fuentes, where, in light of our policies regarding breaking news topics, it is best covered at this time. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be impossible to adequately summarize the meeting on individual, respective pages. Topic clearly meets the criteria of notability. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that bludgeoning on the part of the page creator is not a good look. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft where developments can be documented, and the question can be revisited if this becomes more than the splash in the news cycle it currently represents. BD2412 T 23:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft This article is very shoddy, but I reckon it could probably stay on Wikipedia if it is properly rewritten to be up to quality standards. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. As this topic has received a lot of attention in the news, I think we should take the time to write it out to standards, iron out the kinks, etc. instead of rushing to publishing an article that wasn't properly looked over. Unknown0124 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nom's comments about recentism are spot on. If this is notable for inclusion in an encyclopadeia, it is not notable as a meeting, but rather, in a wider context. It should be covered in Donald Trump articles, or an article that contextualises this within a larger whole. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly meets the criteria of notability. It's been headline news on almost every major newspaper and website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs)

Unsigned commentator, this misunderstands the concept of notability. Donald Trump is notable, Kanye West is notable, and so their meeting is reported, but we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a newswire, and so what is notable for an article is not an individual meeting that is widely reported, bu rather a much broader subject, which is to say Trump. If this is relevant, as suggested, for a 2024 bid, and if (and it is unknown at this point) but if that is a major factor in that bid, then the encyclopaedic subject is Donald Trump's presidential bid, and this will be a section of that. This page is a bit of nonsense. We might as well have a page on Donald Trump's views on raking forests (also widely covered in the news), but we don't, because being talked about is not notability of the subject in any form. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning move to draft, as per both @HadesTTW and @2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A. Lucksash (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: while this particular dinner seems to be in the news a lot right now, will this be the actual event the article is about, or will this event just be part of a different article? I'm leaning toward the latter. Andre🚐 00:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Clearly has significant, long-term notability. It's been consistent, headline news on the front of almost every major website for over a week. The meeting has received attention from multiple foreign leaders (including heads of government and state), the Majority/Minority leaders of both the American House and Senate, represents an unprecendented moment in modern American history, and has received overwhelming attention in reliable sources. The criteria of WP:10YT will almost certainly be met. Reactions from domestic and international political figures — as well as the specific details of the meeting — can not be well covered in their individual respected articles. Clearly merits an independent article.

It's clear that this is far more than a mere splash in the news cycle. KlayCax (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KlayCax (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep: Seconding the arguments here. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It's relevant enough to mention in each respective person's biography but not significant enough for its own article. --TocMan (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not news. But that does not mean it can not have articles about subjects presently on the news. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the meeting itself (and the fall out) is notable in and of itself. It would be a small mention (at most) in each of the individual's biographies, which would fail to adequately cover the meeting. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe there should be a dedicated page to Kanye West's antisemitism, as more and more news is coming out from it. This could be included in that page, and become a blurb in the page for Trump and Fuentes. TheRealOj32 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my experience the community tends to follow the "Just wait and see" principle when it comes to articles like these that have received widespread RS coverage in a short period of time and their passing the WP:10YEARTEST. If it does become a short-lived news story, it will be evident within a year or so (possibly even sooner) and can be deleted with confidence at that point. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it in article space now with the idea that we can delete it later seems like a worse idea than draftifying this so that if it does prove notable in draft space "within a year or so", it can be mainspaced then. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It already is notable by the sheer volume of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not convinced that this event is non-notable because of recentism unless someone can provide actual evidence of that and not just subjective skepticism, especially when this event has received new coverage each day since it occurred. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A clearly notable and consequential meeting. And I am unclear why a former US President (and current candidate) meeting a Holocaust denier, alongside one of the world's most famous musicians, won't be a notable event in ten years time. Does the proposer know something I don't? 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D4CC:98B7:8177:BC80 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only an understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and experience debating it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft. Article has potential. Not ready yet though. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I read reviewed all the criteria for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and Recentism isn't listed as a reason to delete an article. Furthermore, under the Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism article cited in the nomination for deletion, the suggested solutions do not focus on deletion. Instead it focuses on patience: "Wait and See." So it seems like patience rather than deletion is a better fit with Wikipedia policy. In the nine days since this event, its significance has continued to grow. Over the last seven years, the Trump campaign has developed a reputation for being impervious to mis-steps like this, but even Fox News has critically covered this event: Trump fires back at 'loser' McConnell, says Fuentes' views 'wouldn't have been accepted' if raised at dinner. While its possible that this event will fade in importance, it's also quite possible that it will continue to grow in significance and having a publicly available article to build on will provide a service to the community. mennonot (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs a major rewrite and I may consider draftification of the article, if this meeting is not that significant enough which made this event got a lot of attention from U.S. political sphere and media. I think everyone should be given a chance to develop this article in the mainspace. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redraft under a better name more reflective of how reliable sources refer to the event. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator comments. If it isn't deleted, it should be moved to Draft since the article is a mess at the moment. 92.22.180.128 (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for now with no prejudice to republication on the mainspace once it's been properly re-written KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not only it gained a lot of media attention, it also influenced some other events later, and is widely referenced everywhere now. --GreenZeb (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]