Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia

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 keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. The "delete" argument is that because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not all topics that are newsworthy (i.e. have coverage in the news) are necessarily suitable for inclusion. The clear consensus, however, is that the topic of this article is an encyclopedic event of historical significance, beyond just being newsworthy, based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mz7 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia

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

WP:NOTNEWS. reddogsix (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Improve Move relevant details the article wants to cover into its own section in an already made article about Donald Trump or Donald Trump/Russia, or greatly improve the article to the point it can stand alone if this determined as a notable event. As right now it is just a very short introduction, with a copy/paste from the introductions of Russian interference in elections and Dismissal of James Comey along with a bunch of named reference that were lost on the way over. WikiVirusC (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and I would recommend renaming and broadening). I would support a more general article on Handling of sensitive and classified information by the Trump administration (or something shorter, I don't know, maybe Information security under the Trump administration). There have been a series of noteworthy events over a series of months that have attained significant coverage could be sensibly be treated together (and are treated together by the sources), e.g.,

Associated Press: "The outgoing White House also became concerned about the Trump team’s handling of classified information. After learning that highly sensitive documents from a secure room at the transition’s Washington headquarters were being copied and removed from the facility, Obama’s national security team decided to only allow the transition officials to view some information at the White House, including documents on the government’s contingency plans for crises."

New York Times: From Trump’s Mar-a-Lago to Facebook, a National Security Crisis in the Open: "— President Trump and his top aides coordinated their response to North Korea’s missile test on Saturday night in full view of diners at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida — a remarkable public display of presidential activity that is almost always conducted in highly secure settings." See also Trump ran a campaign based on intelligence security. That’s not how he’s governing., Washington Post (Feb. 13, 2017).</ref>

Washington Post: Trump turns Mar-a-Lago Club terrace into open-air situation room: "Now, Trump is drawing fire from Democrats for his own seemingly loose attitude toward information security. He has continued to use an insecure cellphone, according to the New York Times. He may have left a key to classified information on his desk while visitors were in the Oval Office...."

Washington Post: 'Nuclear football' photo taken at Trump’s golf resort puts the Pentagon in an awkward position: "The photographs have prompted questions among some national security professionals because it appears Trump and his staff handled a sensitive — and potentially classified — security situation in public."

Neutrality^talk 01:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not convincing. Such an article would be WP:SYNTHESIS unless serious sources connect the dots. Of course, such sources may exist… — JFG ^talk 04:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources discuss these events collectively, as a quick search will show. The Washington Post article mentions this: "Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials ... faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners..." Or this piece by Jack Goldsmith and others: "This approach to sensitive information does not appear to be a one-off. President Trump has previously taken heat for his cavalier attitude towards safeguarding classified information, for example when he openly reviewed plans related to a North Korean nuclear test in the Mar-a-Lago dining room in full view of other diners or when he appeared to inadvertently confirm the authenticity of leaked CIA documents on Fox News." Neutrality^talk 04:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps even something related to Trump's relations with Russia, like Donald Trump–Russia relations? It would be a rather unique article, but there's no lack of sources discussing their relationship, whatever that may entail. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that title, I came up with Alleged Russian involvement with the Trump presidency here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support Neutrality's suggestion to create an info sec under the Trump adm article where "Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia" would re-direct. I oppose the suggestions above to create a 'Donald Trump–Russia relations' article. The material that would go into such an article already exists in 'Russian interference....' and 'Foreign Policy of the Trump adm." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - This story is already covered by Presidency of Donald Trump. The article at issue in this thread should be either deleted or merged into the Presidency article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean where you tried to remove it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remember to be civil. SMP0328. (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am civil. You tried to remove the info from the article you are now saying "it's already covered in". Here. Right here is where you try to do it. Please act in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - That was a removal from the lead -- a correct one. The place for that paragraph is in the article body. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is already receiving international coverage in several prominent sources. It is a highly significant event and perhaps even historic. If news coverage of subsides by the end of the AfD, I will gladly change my !vote to merge. By the way, I moved the article to Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia. No doubt a better title could be found.- Mr X 01:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The incident is so notable and was already so widely published that it deserves a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I'm sure some clean up and improvement will be necessary. Widely widely widely reported, this is not going away and obviously very notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per other keeps. This is historical and likely to be important in 10 years.Casprings (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As far as we know, this is fake news denied by the NSA. Wikipedia not a gossip blog.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per WP:NOTNEWS. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We are WP:NOT#NEWS. The relevant section in Presidency of Donald Trump#Revelation of classified information to Russia is enough. — JFG ^talk 04:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be expanded to cover the Russian angle of Trump's presidency. At 145KB per WP:SIZE the article Presidency of Donald Trump should be trimmed down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a POV fork to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Donald Trump non-revelation of classified information to Russia? Wasn't aware we had that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously of Presidency of Donald Trump. We don't need a separate article for each day's news item. At the end of four years, I can imagine we'll have a couple hundred of these POV forks scattered across Wikipedia: POV phrasing of scandalous event from day 231, POV phrasing of scandalous event from day 235, POV phrasing of scandalous event from day 239, and so on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't a "each day's news item".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not even sure why this is up for discussion...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well reported news story. Obvious political intentions behind the proposed deletion. KingAntenor (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Rename and Expand - It is presidential prerogative to disclose intelligence to whomever. The real on-going issue is the Trump/Russia connection. If we look at this incident retrospectively in another year - there is no way this single incident will stand alone - and not be folded into whatever entry(ies) cover the "Trump XXX Russia" entry(ies).Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Seeing that there seems to be no entry on "Trump / Russia" (affair? investigations? links? conspiracy theory? - lots of POV issues in naming) - beyond Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - I believe it is appropriate to create one focused on post-election issues. I think this incident is notable - but that it should be placed in a wider context (of the calls to investigate "Trump / Russia").Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable and covered in myriad RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is obviously notable, both as part of the larger Trump-Russia investigation and on its own as an unprecedented leak of classified intel by POTUS. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 06:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and well covered. If it ends up being debunked we can reconsider. Bakilas (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS.--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reason why a short summary of this couldn't be included in Trump's article.128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This specific incident has been perceived as exceptional behavior for a president by RS, and is strongly sourced. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:NOTNEWS, moreover the section on Presidency of Donald Trump (which is almost too much as of now) can comfortably hold the contents of this article - which is largely redundant, evidenced by the fact that the lead is its largest section. Editors can expand the section on Presidency of Donald Trump if need be. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short mention in Presidency of Donald Trump and move on. No need for a whole article. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No idea why this would even be nominated. Clearly an important event, with rammifications for US foregin policy - and the intelligence community Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, Wikipedia does create articles about current news items, especially if they make people in power look like fools. 2600:1002:B111:2A77:D4BC:601B:1BEE:35FF (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course we must be selective about which Trump scandals get their own pages, but they can't all sit on the main page, and this is of major significance based on coverage to date. Artw (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FART. This topic appears to have been sensationalized by the press. For example, the White House has flatly denied the story is true as reported, but our (long) lead doesn't mention this at all. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Ernie. Every press account has stated that McMaster "denied" something that was not asserted in the RS accounts of Trump's breach. His words were chosen not to deny what was in the RS reports. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The president has since confirmed the reports as true. Artw (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info User:SPECIFICO and User:Artw. - I must have missed that in my eagerness to cite WP:FART. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Should very tightly shorten and place in an existing article, at least for now. This could warrant its own page if it leads to lasting major trouble for the administration or - gods forbid - it ends up causing some kind of diplomatic incident (or worse), which at the moment looks unlikely. I may be wrong, but I suspect that rightly or wrongly it will blow over.Cpaaoi (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those citing WP:NOTNEWS, it reads:

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style."

I highlighted the two key points, as this is an ongoing story about Russia that has been in the news for months now. We also have this: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which is related. I just don't see this being a flash in the pan news story as it hasn't been "gone by tomorrow". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Trump/Russia" whatever-you-want-to-call-it (Affair? Investigation? Conspiracy theory? All a matter of POV) - is on-going. This particular incident is part of a wider picture - and it should go in there (along with congressional calls in investigate Trump/Russia - prior to this incident and presumably long after). The Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is too limited in scope for what's being brought up now - there should be an article that is larger than one incident.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we cant keep throwing things about Russia into Presidency of Donald Trump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is not routine news reporting. Yes, it should be briefly mentioned elsewhere and described in detail here, as we usually do with notable sub-subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citation of "wp:notnews" falls flat, as this is not a routine or simple story. It is a part of the larger issue of Trump's alleged collusion with a foreign government, which has seen sustained and in-depth coverage for several months now. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and increase scope per Neutrality and Knowledgekid87. The Presidency of Donald Trump article is too long for this article to be merged into it. There are other newsworthy incidents where Trump's handling of sensitive or classified information has been questions, such as his discussion at Mar-a-Lago, that don't have their own articles, and it would provide more context to cover them together. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I say we keep it for now because it's very well covered. But there's a good chance the coverage will move on to other things, depending on the outcome of the investigation into Russian interference in the election. So if there are still stories being written about this in 6 months, that'd be an obvious keep. But if not, then we need to return to this discussion and determine whether this is something worth preserving. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible redirect to Donald Trump - I do see opportunity for this article to expand. If it's something that can simply be mentioned in the Trump article, we can redirect this to that for those using Wikipedia's search bar. Cosmic Clone (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Highly notable event, extensively covered in reliable sources. For example, we have a whole article devoted to the very petty Hillary Clinton email controversy which involved far less important material, which wasn't handed over to the country's enemy no. 1. --Tataral (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - although yeah, if we find this individually notable itself, like Hillary Clinton email controversy (which 100% actually happened), we can keep this one, however in this case, the article stands or falls on its own merits. Cosmic Clone (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this will be speedily kept, it would help get a title/scope discussion started faster though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Expand into something that covers more than one event, because of WP:NOTNEWS, but the overhall Trump information handling deserves an article on its own. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Lasersharp (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what speedy delete criteria do you believe this falls under? Neutrality^talk 20:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be broadened to something like Information security under the Trump administration as some mentioned. Lasersharp (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly this is not an ordinary event since it impacts the world. So, guidance on notability is found in WP:EVENTCRIT: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". --I am One of Many (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of Trump stuff falls under NOTNEWS. This one has the depth and extent of coverage to be pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm shocked that this is the NOTNEWS hill people have chosen to die on. The coverage here is not just a quick mention in a single news cycle. It's very obviously got the depth of coverage and staying power to pass GNG several times over. There are plenty of other articles that are worth blasting as simple news, but this is not one of them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Russia–United States relations under Donald Trump or similar. I originally voted delete. There needs to be an article on Trump-Russia ties in general, but the current title refers to a single news event. I would support merging Donald Trump–Russia dossier into this article's successor. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the biggest news story about Trump this month; Dismissal of James Comey is more notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:N(E) ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; This is not someone farting in the forest, or even a congressman falling off a ladder and breaking his arm. This appears to be a security breach of extraordinary and historic proportions, and stands to cause significant repercussions in the intelligence operations of at least one country, and consternations among many world leaders regarding how to communicate with, and what not to share with, this POTUS. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – as legal experts have stated, this is the most serious charge ever leveled against a sitting president. Clearly, the depth of coverage is there, so nominator's argument of NOTNEWS does not suffice. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. This is obviously an enormous and notable story, with implications for domestic politics by all accounts and implications for international relations (intel sharing) per expert commentary. The story has massive coverage, with numerous experts noting how exceptional and serious it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an overwhelming amount of in-depth, ongoing coverage for this. Many sources are predicting lasting effects, including impacts on international relations and intelligence sharing. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though needs a clean-up, article overall is well referenced, and whole world media is covering this scandal.Redhat101 Talk 00:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand scope to Information security under the Trump administration per Neutrality; highly significant as a continuation of the same pattern, as in: turning Mar-a-Lago dining area into a situation room, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is news, plenty of news sources. And, as plenty other keeps say, it is a significant event. Calicodragon (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we snow keep now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's continuing discussion on how/whether to re-name the page, but I support a snow keep. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is most definitely news and deserving of an article. It has been extensively reported by many news outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, and many others since Monday. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's some material that can go into the article (and into an article about historical disputes between President Trump and his employees): "The highly classified information ... was collected by Israel, a crucial source of intelligence... Trump’s disclosure of the information threatened to fray that partnership... A U.S. official ... said the revelation potentially put the source at risk... Israel’s ambassador ... said the partnership between the U.S and Israel was solid." AP News. It looks like the sole authoritative official source on the dispute (Tel Aviv) says the press made it up. If so, we can "better inform our readers" by noting this. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Israel's ambassador said..." - I think that's the "diplomat" part of...well, "diplomat".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and later possibly Merge after we know what to merge it into - Quite a bit of press, but this seems to be a pattern for Trump for mundane and routine meetings to turn into massive news stories. Every time he opens his big mouth it seems to result in yet another cascade of new pages and articles. What to do? This may need to be merged into another article at some point but at the moment I don't think anyone can know for certain where it will end up. This probably belongs in one of the articles on the Russia-Trump controversies after the initial press dies down. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice – Per this discussion, article has been temporarily renamed to Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia. Further name change is possible with a move request if/when article scope is expanded. — JFG ^talk 09:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The article doesn't have enough importance to create it's own page. A mention in Presidency of Donald Trump is all that is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.7.75 (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2017‎
Keep. This act has now reverberated around the world and has global impact for countries and intelligence services of multiple different nations internationally. Thousands of sources in multiple languages have provided in-depth analysis. Example: The head of the German intelligence oversight committee Burkhard Lischka said that if Trump "passes this information to other governments at will, then Trump becomes a security risk for the entire western world." German intelligence committee head calls Donald Trump 'a security risk to the Western world' | The Independent. Sagecandor (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Frankly, the fact that this AfD has brought so much attention from so many editors suggests it is NOTABLE and DUE and that NOTNEWS doesn’t apply. Maybe merge at some later time. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2017 (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.