- Donald Trump "compromised" claims (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
WP:INVOLVED close and a ton of notable coverage in reliable sources making this notable in it's own right as a scandal, even if it is disproven like Pizzagate. The article title may need work, but the content of the article easily passes WP:GNG. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. The AfD wasn't closed, the article was speedily deleted per WP:G10. Recommend closing this DRV. Softlavender (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly was a sourced, notable controversy an attack page? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the discussions and rationales in the AfD [3] and, if you like, the ANI thread [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy deletion due to the SNOW consensus at AfD and due to obvious and blatant call-out BLP-violation based on one recent article/source and its unproven allegations. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a list of just a fraction of the coverage from notable sources about this controversy
- Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Then add them (or try adding them) to a relevant existing article, rather than a BLP-violating article. Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Actually, that's probably not such a crazy idea... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as a stand-alone article per G10; that the media chooses to report on unsubstantiated allegations against a BLP does not change our standards. Agree that adding some matter mentioning the controversy without specifics could at least be discussed on, say, the talk page of the article on the transition.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Twitbookspacetube: I'm just wondering what you thought was the WP:INVOLVED violation? I know you tried to withdraw it after someone else had replied, but had you just made a mistake or is there something that you genuinely think is a violation? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Genuine mistake, hence the attempted withdrawal. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks - you could just strike it rather than deleting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse G10 and snow. This was such a blatant BLP violation that G10 was fine. AfD was a snow result that came to the same conclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|