Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDonald.win
Appearance
If Chrissy Teigen deserves a Wikipedia page then thedonald.win Is definitely deserving of one. Chrissy Teigen is only famous for being John legend’s wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.186.170 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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}} . |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- TheDonald.win (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)
Notability has not been adequately shown. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete internet forums for political candidates are a dime a dozen and this one doesn't seem to be any more notable then any of the other ones out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Adamant1 per WP:GNG the topic meets the guidelines to be suitable for a stand-alone article --Techied (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Techied, see my comment below. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Adamant1 per WP:GNG the topic meets the guidelines to be suitable for a stand-alone article --Techied (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is the largest forum dedicated to Donald Trump, who is not just a political candidate but the sitting President of the United States. The site has received lengthy coverage both in its former form as a subreddit and as an independent site (Notably, the subreddit does have its own page, so why not this site?) At most, the page should be added to WP:ATTENTION because it is lacking somewhat in citations of notability, due to its age of only 1 day. --Techied (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'd support merging to r/The_Donald since that seems to be what most of the coverage is about at this point and therefore this is technically WP:TOSOON on it's own IMO. It's impossible at this point to say if TheDonald.win will be notable enough on it's own as is though. I feel like a lot of the media around these types of things has mostly fizzled out to. It's hot notable just by inheritance though and there still needs to be enough in-depth coverage about it to warrant a separate article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Thedonald.win is the largest Pro-Trump forum on the internet as of now and there is no issue with it having its own wikipedia article. It's own former status as a subreddit, r/the_donald, has its own wikipedia article so there is no reason the site itself shouldn't, especially with the amount of traffic it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Merging it with r/the_donald is a bad decision. r/the_donald is entirely different than thedonald.win. r/the_donald was a subreddit on reddit, and thedonald.win is an online forum with its own domain, .win, and it has a community of different .win websites alongside it. The r/the_donald subbreddit's wikipedia article is also semi-protected by wikipedia, so only authorized users can make edits, and so thedonald.win's portion if it does merge may go unnoticed and not updated as the forum develops. It would also be subject to some political biases as well if merged with r/the_donald. Overall the idea of this forum having its own wikipedia article is fine.
- First of all, it's already mentioned in r/the_donald and this article doesn't add anything notable that isn't already mentioned there. So it's a completely needless fork. It's ridiculous to claim if it's added to r/the_donald it will go un-noticed or not be updated. Second, "keep because political biases" isn't a valid keep argument. Even if it was though, there still needs to enough in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources about it to pass the notability guidelines and it just doesn't have enough yet IMO. At the end of the day this a completely unnecessary fork article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The only mention is has in r/the_donald's wiki page is that users left the subreddit to go there, it doesn't explain any of the statistics of the site, history of the site, or how it works. And I'm just pointing out that political biases on both sides have plagued that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's really all that needs to be said about it at this point anyway though. Stuff like the sites Alexa ranking or how many posts per day it has isn't really relevant. If you cut that stuff out of the article all that would be left is essentially what's already in r/the_donald. What little isn't mentioned there though could easily be added to it though. Although, there's almost nothing that should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is plenty to be said about the site that isn't yet included in r/the_donald or TheDonald.win. The information in r/the_donald is meager at best and can be expanded upon. --Techied (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The article was just made today, there is much more that can be expanded upon for this article, but so far it has just been 3 guys putting in a few smaller paragraphs to get it started. As more people come across it, more people will add to it. Also thedonald.win itself wants no association with the website reddit, which is the site that the now banned subreddit was on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course they don't want to be associated with Reddit now that they banned them. They were perfectly fine using it to promote their site before then though when they were the mods of r/the_donald. Either way though, Wikipedia doesn't do what website admins want. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Never said that they have to follow what the forum admins want, all I'm saying is that thedonald.win has no relation to reddit itself, it's a completely separate forum, the only relation between the two is that the mods are the same because they founded the forum, and the users flocked from r/the_donald to TheDonald.win. They shouldn't be on the same article, there is no need for it to be put on there, this is a separate entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course they don't want to be associated with Reddit now that they banned them. They were perfectly fine using it to promote their site before then though when they were the mods of r/the_donald. Either way though, Wikipedia doesn't do what website admins want. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's really all that needs to be said about it at this point anyway though. Stuff like the sites Alexa ranking or how many posts per day it has isn't really relevant. If you cut that stuff out of the article all that would be left is essentially what's already in r/the_donald. What little isn't mentioned there though could easily be added to it though. Although, there's almost nothing that should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The only mention is has in r/the_donald's wiki page is that users left the subreddit to go there, it doesn't explain any of the statistics of the site, history of the site, or how it works. And I'm just pointing out that political biases on both sides have plagued that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, it's already mentioned in r/the_donald and this article doesn't add anything notable that isn't already mentioned there. So it's a completely needless fork. It's ridiculous to claim if it's added to r/the_donald it will go un-noticed or not be updated. Second, "keep because political biases" isn't a valid keep argument. Even if it was though, there still needs to enough in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources about it to pass the notability guidelines and it just doesn't have enough yet IMO. At the end of the day this a completely unnecessary fork article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, it seems that the user Techied is a single article editor and member of thedonald.win. Who posted a message to it's members here asking them to get involved in the AfD. Most notably the message included Techied saying "You need to create an account, and then edit the page saying it's considered for deletion. Add your comment to the bottom using this format: *KEEP type your reason here." Which I'm pretty sure violates the guidelines around campaigning and sockpuppet voting. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Might I add that the post influenced nobody to come over here, and there were disagreements in the comments over it because many believe wikipedia's top editors have a political bias. Also that should be an issue with the user and not the article itself. --Bolt9094 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the post now realizing that it is in bad faith. I mistook sockpuppeting to mean only fake accounts. Nonetheless, as Bolt9094 mentioned it doesn't seem to have had an effect on this AfD. --Techied (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the quote above was in response to a comment where a user asked more specifically what to do, this was not given as general instruction in my main post. --Techied (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Just a copycat website of r/the_Donald, and notability is not demonstrated with multiple significant sources. Reywas92Talk 17:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't something Donald Trump did, and it isn't a "copycat" of r/The_Donald, it has the same users and moderators as r/The_Donald as it was founded by mods and users there who went to thedonald.win after the_donalds quarantine and shutdown on Reddit. --Bolt9094 (talk)
- The site passes WP:GNG as has been discussed multiple times --64.201.97.98 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to r/The_Donald; it's not independently notable from its prior incarnation. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to r/The_Donald, no reason for this to be split from that page as they are pretty much the exact same thing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge with r/The_Donald, i believe it is notable enough to deserve a mention but not notable enough to deserve its own page Pancho507 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect, and User:Techied should be censured for Votestacking. --Cahk (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect Its pretty much just a spin-off/sequel to the Reddit sub, I don't see how one is notable without the other, we surely don't need two articles on this fanclub.★Trekker (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the site is notable, as per Wikipedia:Notability's guidelines; TheDonald.win has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and is bound to receive more over time. Especially note these articles wherein thedonald.win was mentioned without any reference to its predecessor r/The_Donald, or r/the_donald's banning/quarantine, giving thedonald.win notability apart from r/the_donald.[11][12][13][14] It would be improper to lump thedonald.win with the r/the_donald article, since r/the_donald is a defunct subreddit, and thedonald.win is an independent forum. Therefore, I also oppose merging the articles, or redirecting thedonald.win to r/the_donald. LeftScript (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- An account created over 2 years ago with zero edit except to cast a vote here - SPA?--Cahk (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, though I understand your suspicion. I hope that my account's lack of editing doesn't detract from the content of my argument, because that would mean my contribution was meaningless, and I shouldn't have bothered. I ask that AGF would be practiced. LeftScript (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- AGF is the correct answer here. I am pretty sure LeftScript didn't create an account two years ago specifically for this conversation. If they did, I have some questions about stocks and sports betting. Wookian (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The subreddit is dead now. No reason to link a live site to a dead subreddit. Dead subreddit /R/the_donald is dead. AngerMacFadden (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It is a notable and politically important site as evidenced by all the links shared by LeftScript above. If one wanted to redirect, it would actually make more sense to redirect /r/the_donald to the new .win article, than to redirect the live site thedonald.win to the defunct subreddit article. Wookian (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and highly relevant to the ongoing "publisher vs. platform" debate regarding internet censorship. jej1997 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- ^ https://www.wired.com/story/the-hate-fueled-rise-of-rthe-donald-and-its-epic-takedown/
- ^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-cheers-on-kanyes-bid-but-his-pollster-has-got-reservations
- ^ https://www.wfae.org/post/behind-reddits-decision-boot-thedonald-forum#stream/0
- ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-lawmakers-excoriate-reddit-for-censorship-of-the-donald-pro-trump-forum
- ^ https://onezero.medium.com/months-before-reddit-purge-the-donald-users-created-a-new-home-a732f79e4f04
- ^ https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-social-network-reddit-censorship-e0f38e5c-f911-4a24-9552-3afb0f56e4e4.html
- ^ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/would-trump-abandon-twitter-345192
- ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/trump-s-liberate-tweets-extremists-see-call-arms-n1186561
- ^ https://www.mediamatters.org/fake-news/debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-black-lives-matter-actblue-and-democrats-can-be-traced
- ^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/glenn-beck-steve-king-go-conspiracy-crazy-over-dhs-officials-death
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2020/07/09/is-social-media-making-the-political-divide-even-worse/#1d80230f7e70
- ^ https://www.axios.com/qanons-2020-resurgence-41759d2b-7d08-4d6e-bad0-d2a63b6285ad.html
- ^ https://www.axios.com/parler-donaldwin-gab-trump-social-media-facebook-9272128a-1bf1-4883-9022-fe8d9ce62365.html
- ^ https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/need-to-know/need-to-know-july-8-2020/