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 delete. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump plant theory (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)

This page is the lone survivor of the three articles dedicated to "conspiracy theories" of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Similar to AfD: Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 and Afd: Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, this article should be likewise deleted as content deemed inadequate for inclusion in Trump's presidential campaign article, and per WP:NOTNEWS. Content very similar to what's in the article was deleted as part of the Conspiracy theories article, and I don't see a reason to keep it in a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At first, I thought I agreed with the notion that "if the content isn't on the campaign page, then it should't have it's own article." If it's not notable enough for the campaign's page, why should it get it's own page? But with as many reliable sources (BBC, The Washington Post, CNN, etc.) cited, and my remembrance of this theory being more prominent in the media than the other two mentioned theories that have already been deleted, I don't believe this specific theory should be wiped from Wiki entirely. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- sources also include Tampa Bay Times and Gawker. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So those cancel each other out? I don't think that's how it works... Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just pointing out that the sources indicate typical "news cycle driven" chatter, rather in-depth academic analysis. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Full confession: I had not even heard of this one until I happened on it at AFD. At a glance, my first impulse was to keep, because the sources looked strong and because it is often useful to keep and debunk even patently absurd rumors (i.e., Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Then, not least because I had never heard of this one, I clicked on some of the more reputable sources, like The Hill and the Washington Post, reading them made it clear that while this was floated, it was never taken seriously; journalists wrote it up dismissively and "tongue in cheek." It soon disappeared. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is a valid subject for an article since this supposed strategy has been talked about for over a year, when Trump was running in the Republican primaries. Whether the article will stand the test of time, I'm not sure but I think it is valuable right now, in 2016. 198.0.45.11 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG, good sourcing DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just like the conspiracy theory and brain damage articles. Sources are weak are unserious. Passing the incredibly low bar of gng does not make nonsense into encyclopedia content. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now Interesting article. We should wait until after the election to see if the theory is true. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC) --Struck !vote of blocked sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- anybody really thinks that Trump is a plant? :-) Or was that sarcasm? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: --- never doubt the accuracy of twenty-twenty hindsight :-) Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This conspiracy theory is only interesting in context of the ongoing election. WP:RECENTSIM and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Not an encyclopedic subject. My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and due the previously mentioned, it fails GNG. Although this "rumor" is quite entertaining, it has not managed to outlast the news cycles that originally carried it. Also, as mentioned above, it was never taken seriously and therefore does not demonstrate the durability of other more well known fringe theories. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yet another WP:FRINGE, semi-jocular "theory." It's very obvious speculation, and we needn't treat every piece of speculation - no matter how intriguing and/or well-covered - to its own article. For instance, the Cruz-Oswald slur (remember that?), the "OMG Clinton wore an earpiece" nonsense, and all of the rest do not need their own articles, even though they've certainly generated sourcing. With every twist and turn of the campaigns, more of this sort of thing will come up. GAB^gab 00:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Highly discussed subject, covered in several reliable media sources. MB298 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An encyclopedia is not a place for conspiracy theories - such articles are inherently POV by their very existence. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracy theories There's plenty of em. ZN3ukct (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fringe theory at best. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it is not a tabloid, either. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: future generations would be amused to read about this, but most likely only in the context of an article section that discussed all notable kooky theories of this election. Including the theory that Trump is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States of America.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even if we say something passes GNG (and I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here), that doesn't automatically mean it should have a stand-alone article. There are hundreds of individual aspects of individual campaigns, incidents involving individual candidates, etc. that, taken on their own, could be viewed as notable. But we don't have to take them on their own. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't need to cover all of them separately, irrespective of WP:WEIGHT/relative significance to the larger topic of which they are a part. It's possible this could be included in a campaign/election-related article, but the existence of sources about an aspect of those subjects that gets a bit of superficial attention in the news doesn't necessitate an article. There's some coverage -- but what's certainly not established is lasting significance outside the campaign/candidacy. I would support deleting the lot of stand-alone "controversy", "conspiracy", etc. articles that have no life outside of 2016 election/campaign/candidacy coverage until after the election, when we can see what has lasting significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2016 (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.