Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Raid of Mar-a-Lago: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:32, 9 August 2022 edit331dot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,361 edits →Raid of Mar-a-Lago: re← Previous edit Revision as of 09:38, 9 August 2022 edit undoLaserLegs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,814 edits kNext edit →
Line 67: Line 67:
*'''Keep''' Notable enough to justify its own page. ] (]) 08:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Notable enough to justify its own page. ] (]) 08:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. A former President has never been subjected to such a warrant before; that makes this notable itself irrespective of what happens next. ] (]) 09:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. A former President has never been subjected to such a warrant before; that makes this notable itself irrespective of what happens next. ] (]) 09:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' once we find out which ] this is attached to maybe fold it in. Merging into Mar-a-largo is silly that's an article about a building this is an article about federal troops attacking a political opponent. --] (]) 09:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:38, 9 August 2022

Raid of Mar-a-Lago

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Raid of Mar-a-Lago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. There's not enough information yet to be able to expand this topic into a full-fledged article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Merge with the main Mar-a-Lago article. Marioedit8 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The page was nominated for deletion not even 10 minutes after being created. There is plenty more to add. However, there is already a ton of coverage including internationally. The home of a former president being raided is very notable and is unprecedented. The page can also be expanded based upon Republican's response - such as claims to defund the FBI or McCarthy saying he will subpoena Garland. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment — The claims made by Mr. Trump are unsubstantiated, and while likely true, no RSes have claimed as such. It's also very uncommon, if at all, for articles based on FBI raids to be created. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Patience, Patience -- This story just broke, and no one knows where it is going to go. While it may have been premature to put up a Misplaced Pages page so soon, it is up. Better to keep it up, and later merge it with the larger article on Mar-a-Lago if nothing significant develops. The option of merging it now, and then having to break it out is both awkward, and wasteful of time and energy. And, articles about former President Trump easily take on a life of their own. 2603:8081:4900:55C6:AC73:75AE:D0B0:81F8 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Strong Keep let the page improve it's still new MrMemer223 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge: We don't have a crystal ball, so we cannot ascertain if this incident unto itself will bring about criminal charges, thereby exposing something noteworthy - we simply don't. Is it worthy of its own subsection on Mar-a-Lago? For now, absolutely. But, until we have a clearer picture, we should treat it as a mention on the Mar-a-Lago page. BOTTO (T•C) 03:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment — Keep in mind, this page being potentially a big story is not a valid reason to keep it in mainspace. It's notable enough to be mentioned in Mar-a-Lago's article, for sure, but the details regarding the raid are still murky. Worst case scenario, the page can just be recreated without objection. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm leaning towards keep but only because by the end of the week this could be a much larger thing. If this fizzles out and is nothing then lets just merge it. Dr vulpes 04:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's not even been a day. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    By the same vestige, I can say Delete it hasn't even been a day. Curbon7 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    I can say, confidently, that at least 50% of articles here began in a less-than-favorable state. They need time to flesh out. This becomes this. This becomes this. And this becomes this. So no, you cannot, by the same vestige, vote delete. In the hours since this was AfD'd, the length has already increased. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Truth be told, most of these discussions should be "unpublish" discussions. The issue here is this page was moved to the mainspace way too early. There is such a rush here to publish an article that contains so little information. The principle of "let's just publish the article and flesh it out later" simply is not how this site is supposed to work. If we are talking about an in-progress event that we absolutely know will be able to be fleshed out enough to not be likely subject to a merge later there is wisdom to posting like this, but if nothing pertinent is found in this raid, this is an easy merge. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a major story. All indication is that coverage will continue as the week goes on. I think this nomination was a bit premature. Sometimes it is best to wait a few days to afd articles like this to see if coverage quickly subsides and lasting significance is not demonstrated. Thriley (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Making a TOOSOON AfD against a developing story like this seems very unproductive when an AfD discussion runs for at least 7 days anyway, which is plenty of time for people to determine whether the event is notable or not. It might be easy to recreate the article if it's determined to be notable, but it's even easier to just leave it until there's more consensus. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • And frankly it's just embarrassing that people coming to Misplaced Pages to read about this are greeted with a big red deletion notice at the top of the page... Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm not going too, but I almost want to WP:IAR and just close this early. It's clear that this is going to be kept, and it is quite ridiculous that this were ever proposed... -- Rockstone 07:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • This is probably unfair, but part of me feels that anyone who comes to Misplaced Pages to read about this right now kind of deserves what they get. This is what Wikinews is for. De Guerre (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: The single biggest thing I hate on all of this website is the need some editors have to be the first to create an article on a recent event, no mind to quality or sourcing. It's idiocy, and I wish we took more action to dissuade it. That said, this is certainly a notable event. Coverage is wide and significant and it gets over the WP:NOTNEWS hurdle by the fact of who it is. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. singularly notable event in American history.

Saintstephen000 (talk)

  • Keep, this seems like an event that would pass WP:10YT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge Just, way, way too soon. For all of those saying this event will be notable, as a 1st, everything needs to happen a 1st time if it does happen. We can say in the merged article that this event was a 1st time event. The reality is, it's way too soon to know if this raid will actually have a large impact, if any at all, on future indictment. Once we know more about the findings of the raid, I would suggest re-publishing, but this article is way too heavy on "Reactions" at the moment, something that all these politics-related articles have, but really is the least important part. Is this event significant? Yes. Is it going to be significant enough to where it simply needs to be a separate article? That's Crystal Ball right there. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge Classic WP:109PAPERS, except with 100 less papers, making it worse. No thanks. 12.5.215.114 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep -- seriously? Why is this being proposed for deletion? This is the first time this has happened in American history, and I'm sure we will be talking about this event for years to come, even if (in the very unlikely circumstance) Trump is never indicted. Please stop making obviously spurious deletion proposals. -- Rockstone 06:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    WP:NETRUMP 12.5.215.114 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with anything? Besides, Trump didn't even do this. The FBI did. -- Rockstone 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Plenty of other current events of equal or even less political significance have gotten articles this quickly with the same amount or less of content in them, considering the potential this has to be an extremely major story and the fact reputable news sources are already producing a large amount of coverage for it, it would be extremely unwise to delete an article that will inevitably need to be recreated later anyways. This clearly merits more than just a mention on the main Mar-a-Lago article. 2601:405:4400:9420:5175:B20E:F653:2E42 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep -- If Sharpiegate gets an article, why shouldn't this? TaserTot (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories: