Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe

Covfefe incident

Covfefe incident (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)

Wow. Seriously? This is an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS. feminist 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. feminist 09:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the UK's Independent, Daily Mail and Guardian, among many others, disagree. All have it on the splash screen/home page. Mashable and most other popular web magazines have also given it prominence. Against deletion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wait (then probably Merge to wherever it is we merge the meme-generating minor Trump incidents). Splash pages on newspaper websites is not an indication that something is not news, but as it's still only about 6 hours (all of them night in the US) since this happened it's far too early to know whether long-term this will merit a sentence or an article. The article creation was premature, but given that it was created this deletion nomination is also premature. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I briefly considered waiting a while before nominating this for AfD, but decided to bring this here anyway seeing how Covfefe is salted due to repeated recreation. Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2 is a possible merger target if this is to be mentioned in detail. feminist 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I've redirected Covfefe to Covfefe incident (presumably this hadn't happened as those deleting the former were unaware of the latter). That page being repeatedly recreated though still doesn't make this nomination any less premature. It is by definition impossible to tell whether WP:NOTNEWS applies to something until there is either sufficient information about the subject to make it clear that there is more to it than a flash-in-the-pan news event or that there is no enduring coverage. How long that takes varies, but for something like this it's going to be about 36-48 hours at absolute minimum. Nominations before that time (on NOTNEWS or similar grounds) are just a waste of everybody's time (and sometimes WP:POINT violations, but I don't think that's true here). Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • KEEP: Notable social media event.Dpm12 (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (PDT)
• KEEP: Make Wikipedia great again. Hektor (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, KEEP, notable/notorious social media event - and funny! Groogle365 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017

This is a key moment in the Trump presidency, and the article should be kept for historical reasons. The covfefe incident was also a major international news item appearing on the BBC website front page on 31 May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve stewart (talk • contribs) 12:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a new account with no other contributions Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: If "Ed balls day" isn't worthy of an article, this doesn't even close. It's not particularly funny. Just because a money smashed his keyboard before falling asleep. Seddon ^talk 11:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Not at all notable, this page shows exactly what Wikipedia should not be. See deletion discussion of tea lizard for a similar case Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Lizard. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Not eligible for an article in an encyclopedia, it's simply not notable. Mellk (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: I had also PRODed the article as a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. There is no enduring notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as textbook NOTNEWS. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even news. Non-notable twitter fail. Jonathunder (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - NOTNEWS. Ceosad (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - NOTNEWS - not notable - still developing. This is not what Wiki is for. Can't we do something constructive? Garchy (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - NOTNEWS - not notable - Since when are typo's notable ? even when made by an elected official. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to larger article Twitter activity of Donald Trump. This meets WP:GNG, bigly.[1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: The last point of WP:GNG reads: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not,..." in this case there seems to be a consensus that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand GNG. Many memes and gaffes have notable, lasting affects beyond initial incident, and thus have their own articles that have held up. I agree with the analysis in the link I included from CNN. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wait/Keep for now: it's a developing phenomenon which may yet acquire greater notability than it has already. —ajf (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Internet phenomena, when covered by reputable sources such as the NY Times, CNN, and even the BBC, have established sufficient notability to get a project article. People are too quick to delete around here. At the very least it should be a redirect to something appropriate, as it will be a word people search for. ValarianB (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog of typos, no matter how prominent the typist. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)