Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDonald.win

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 13 August 2020 (too many rough drafts -.-). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Redirected(/merged as appropriate) to r/The_Donald. Extended reasoning, since there are a lot of people who will probably fuss about this close. For the purposes of this exercise, I am conflating the redirect and the merge !votes, since they amount to roughly the same thing, and assuming that those who !vote delete would prefer redirection over nothing (some of which have made this explicit). The numbers are roughly 11 for redirect/merge, 5 for delete, and 10 for keep, or 16 for delete/merge/redirect to 10 for keep, but AfD isn't a vote of course. A lot of the keep !votes are weak arguments; any arguments about "/r/The_Donald has an article" or "/r/The_Donald/ is dead so this should be the main article for the two" are not founded in Wikipedia policy; WP:INHERITWEB, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and WP:OTHERSTUFF come to mind. Alexa traffic results are of course not a factor for notability; see WP:INHERENTWEB. I would be remiss if I didn't say that some of the delete, redirect, or merge are similarly not strong; simply stating that a topic isn't notable isn't a good argument unless you can say why it's not notable, but there is a certain amount of inference, i.e. that the !voter is arguing that the current sources as used in the article are insufficient to establish notability, that can be made there that the keep !votes don't benefit from. LeftScript's keep !vote, in attempting to provide sources for the article, takes the right approach to demonstrating notability, but tronvillain's analysis of those offered sources is persuasive, and it's hard to say that the Axios piece, for example, provides all that much more than trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, as WP:WEBCRIT puts it, so I would tend to agree with their assertion (and the nominator's implied assertion, for that matter) that those sources alone aren't enough to establish notability. So, it seems to me that redirection without deletion is the consensus here; there are some sources, enough that there is some mergeable content that doesn't need to be deleted, but not enough notability for a standalone article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheDonald.win

[edit]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Techied, see my comment below. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If the majority of the sources mention the new forum as the new home of the old forum, then that's a good argument to have only a single article. XOR'easter (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, if not for the fact that thedonald.win is a successor and entirely different website. I don't think it's right for a successor to be thrown into the same article as a predecessor. If anything, it makes the most sense to state that thedonald.win is r/the_donald's successor in r/the_donald's infobox, and for thedonald.win to remain a separate article. I don't understand merging a dead predecessor with an alive successor. Were r/the_donald still alive, I would have no doubt that they should be merged. Successors and predecessors should be separate. LeftScript (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) — AngerMacFadden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and highly relevant to the ongoing "publisher vs. platform" debate regarding internet censorship. jej1997 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adamant1's claim that this website is no more notable than the other ones out there makes no sense. What standards are being used to define notability? What sources helped you come to this conclusion? TheDonald.win receives over double the traffic r/The_Donald received, yet r/The_Donald has an article, so I don't see why this one shouldn't have one as well. Also, TheDonald.win receives over one million comments per month, which most people would consider notable. Adil3214 (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources provided that mention the new forum without the old are a Forbes contributor item, disallowed by WP:RSP; two brief mentions by Axios (one just says "New platforms such as Parler and TheDonald.win are giving the [QAnon] conspiracy theory places to spread unchecked"), which is not in-depth coverage; and a blurb from the American Press Institute that just recycles an Axios mention. This is not enough to qualify as in-depth reporting that establishes the new forum deserves separate treatment. XOR'easter (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point this out, a large majority of users on TheDonald.win disagree with a large majority of QAnon theories/theorists. Bolt9094 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that Forbes contributor items aren't considered reliable sources. I'm not too familiar with all of Wikipedia's guidelines, so I appreciate it. I went ahead and removed it. There appears to be a new article by the Financial Times, but unfortunately I don't have a subscription to them, so I can' t judge it's content.[14] LeftScript (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses the new site as the reiteration of the old, explicitly making the point that it replicate[s] the functionality of Reddit, that its interface is Reddit-like, etc. It looks to be solid coverage, but it's not evidence that the new site needs a new article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I learned a lot from this article about thedonald.win. It's a fun site, glad I joined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.112.60 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC) — 64.201.112.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The problem here is that this article was created about a month too soon. Because the topic website is so new there are not enough sources that talk about it in enough depth to establish that it is notable. HOWEVER, I fully expect the amount of coverage to change in the very near future (as pro-Trump journalists hype it, and anti/trump journalists deride it). So... I would say... KEEP FOR NOW... and REEVALUATE IN A MONTH. If the expected coverage does not appear, we can always delete the article then. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which would work equally well or better as an argument for a redirect—if notability can be established later, it's trivially easy to turn a redirect back into an article. --tronvillain (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to read about this article after I read this article from Financial Times, Far-right finds new online home in TheDonald.win. As for this AfD, I would say keep because the subject absolutely meets WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Santosh L (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to /r/thedonald as above. The legion of "brand new users" !voting keep, may safely be ignored. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by LeftScript. Notability is too palpable here that a standalone article would be well-deserved. Lorstaking 14:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to /r/thedonald, though there might be enough to add a few sentences about it there. There's clearly not enough to establish general notability, however much proponents would like there to be—I've looked through the sources linked by LeftScript and while they make a long list, they in no sense constitute extensive coverage. Let's look: the Wired article is two offhand mentions in a piece about /r/thedonald, the Daily Beast article is a single offhand mention in a piece about Kanye's Presidential bid, the WFAE90.7 interview has another offhand mention of its existence, the Fox News is another offhand mention of about former users of the subreddit fleeing there, the OneZero article may be something {unlike many Medium items) given that it's published by Medium itself with a claim that articles are "subject to editing and fact-checking for accuracy by OneZero’s editorial staff", the short Axios piece is already in the article, the Politico article is a tiny offhand mention in a piece about Trump and Twitter, the NBC News article is an offhand mention in a piece about Trump tweets and extremists, the Media Matters for America is an offhand mention in a piece about a BLM conspiracy theory, the Daily Beast article is an offhand mention in a piece about another conspiracy theory, the next Axios piece is barely an offhand mention in a piece about QAnon, the next Axios piece is a mention in a piece about similar "social media networks", the American Press Institute is just a reprint of the previous Axios piece, and the Financial Times piece is already in the article. The internet was scraped and maybe turned up one additional source from Medium, so I think that collection by LefScript actually makes a pretty good argument for lack of notability. --tronvillain (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to r/The_Donald or Delete. I'm sure the closing admin will take into account the rampant WP:SPA activity on this discussion. KidAd (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is bad, as shown above by several others, and does not support the assertion of notability. Given the nature of this website and its users, there will be a lot of sock and "new user" accounts to weed through by the time this discussion winds down. ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ValarianB, it's telling that fanbois are currently arguing that we should allow unsourced content because reliable sources don't cover it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to /r/TheDonald or WP:DRAFTIFY. Echoing the thoughts of @Tronvillain: I see only two reliable sources where this website is the main focus of the article (FT and Axios). All other mentions in sources are, at best, only in passing, so the article thus fails to satisfy the most basic requirements of WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The subject may be covered extensively by reliable sources in the future, but this article has appeared WP:TOOSOON. Domeditrix (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into r/The_Donald - these communities are so closely related, TheDonald.win does not warrant its own article. Ed talk! 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with r/The Donald, communities are closely related enough that you might as well call them the same community. Due to the fact that this is the same community going by a different name, I don't care which title it ends up being at. Username6892 14:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the page is going to be hijacked by left-wing wikipedia editors who will introduce biases onto the page such as calling it "far-right", then the page shouldn't exist at all. I change my vote to delete Bolt9094 (talk 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it isn't notable enough for mainstream RS to cover and must depend on self-sourced info and original research, it doesn't deserve an article here. -- Valjean (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wired.com/story/the-hate-fueled-rise-of-rthe-donald-and-its-epic-takedown/
  2. ^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-cheers-on-kanyes-bid-but-his-pollster-has-got-reservations
  3. ^ https://www.wfae.org/post/behind-reddits-decision-boot-thedonald-forum#stream/0
  4. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-lawmakers-excoriate-reddit-for-censorship-of-the-donald-pro-trump-forum
  5. ^ https://onezero.medium.com/months-before-reddit-purge-the-donald-users-created-a-new-home-a732f79e4f04
  6. ^ https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-social-network-reddit-censorship-e0f38e5c-f911-4a24-9552-3afb0f56e4e4.html
  7. ^ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/would-trump-abandon-twitter-345192
  8. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/trump-s-liberate-tweets-extremists-see-call-arms-n1186561
  9. ^ https://www.mediamatters.org/fake-news/debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-black-lives-matter-actblue-and-democrats-can-be-traced
  10. ^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/glenn-beck-steve-king-go-conspiracy-crazy-over-dhs-officials-death
  11. ^ https://www.axios.com/qanons-2020-resurgence-41759d2b-7d08-4d6e-bad0-d2a63b6285ad.html
  12. ^ https://www.axios.com/parler-donaldwin-gab-trump-social-media-facebook-9272128a-1bf1-4883-9022-fe8d9ce62365.html
  13. ^ https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/need-to-know/need-to-know-july-8-2020/
  14. ^ https://www.ft.com/content/23f4d7fe-a478-410d-9d03-d5526b6753d1
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheDonald.win&oldid=972750929"