Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump bible controversy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:31, 4 June 2020

Trump bible controversy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable as an event, should be included within main event page of the protests?   Kadzi   (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to protests article, not notable. This isn't a news site. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. As appalling as this incident was, it's only a paragraph in the larger story.Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Seems highly trivial even know this type of story will annoy loads of people. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without leaving a redirect and merge any useful content to an appropriate article. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Mangoe is right that this is just part of the larger story, and not a story on its own. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Not quite noteworthy enough for a separate article. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not independently notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my own comment because the article has been moved and expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to KEEP ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been merged to George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu. Love of Corey (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem with news, is that it develops, and while 30 seconds later, nothing is notable ... things change. Now that Trump has been denounced by both the Anglican Bishop of Washington, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington (in the name of Pope John Paul II for the June 1 (and now June 2) visits), has this since become independently notable? I added two references to the article. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename ~~and rewrite~~. No merge.. This is a notable event. However, it is not really about using the Bible, but about the Photo op session by Donald Trump. Or maybe it should be something like 2020 St. John's Church incident (someone already created it in talk page space). To make the session he ordered to attack people who demonstrated peacefully in DC. That must be emphasized here, although the misuse of the Bible to justify evil actions is also notable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, here is the actual story as described in sources [1]. "The President of the United States delivered a speech about the need to "dominate" the streets in the wake of protests that have arisen following the death of George Floyd, a black man who was held down and killed while in Minneapolis police custody. Then the President, in a transparent attempt to push back on the storyline that he had to be whisked to a bunker below the White House to protect him from protesters in DC last Friday [2], strolled across H Street to St. John's Church and held a Bible aloft shortly after police had forcefully cleared peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park." My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with George Floyd protests as a non-independently notable subject at best. This is footnote-worthy at best. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep in light of the numerous coverage that the subject has received independently of the George Floyd incident, and the fact that the article has since been expanded to include this coverage. IMO, this was a case of WP:TOOSOON for the article to have been created, but it now meets general notability guidelines. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content somewhere. It's relevant content, and should either be part of its own page on the controversial photo op, or merge the content to the "George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C." article. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move -- to Photo op sessions by Donald Trump (plural now, two different religious institutions) or something more specific. I would have agree with the deletion yesterday--but the continung news suggests to me that this might well be a major issue. abovee.it's a bad title anyway, because the controversy is about his using the church, not specifically about his holding up the bible. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald Trump photo op sessions controversy, perhaps, unless you want to bring every photo op he's done into scope. There's likely thousands of verifiable ones. —Cryptic 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Photo-op" may be perceived as editorializing the event. While it was inarguably a photo-op, it also may have represented something much more significant to Trump. We should remain objective and not include that phrase in the title. The topic also more broadly covers law enforcement actions separate from the actual photo op. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a considerable expansion of this subject currently outlined at Talk:George Floyd protests#2020 St. John's Church incident. It very plainly meets the WP:GNG, if you're into that. —Cryptic 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and rename~~ This topic has been merged with an expanded draft on the same topic. Please see the revised content. I'd propose 2020 St. John's Church incident as a new name for the topic as the event relates to actions well beyond Trump holding up a bible. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is much better now. No doubts, this event deserves separate page. A significant part of this is the calling for military intervention by Trump. Trudeau dodged the question about it [3]. Biden criticized it [4], etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking "rename" following renaming of topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename given recent additions to the article. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable on its on, as it was a unique event within a larger event. Plus, there is enough content that it clearly be a sub article of George Floyd protests.Casprings (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Historians are saying this could be one of the most iconic moments of Donald Trump's presidency. I would suggest changing the name to Donald Trump visit to St. John The lorax (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree I like Donald Trump visit to St. John Church as a new title. It descriptive and non-editorialized. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Since the photo op was in response to the fire the night before, and since the events surrounding the photo op were significant, I propose changing the name of the article to 2020 St. John's Church fire, with the photo op being a section of the article.Bartholomite (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - Good idea, focusing on Trump's role alone is giving him too much coverage. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under Donald Trump visit to St. John Church or similarly neutral name. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as named Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church. Responses from Joe Biden and the Australian government launching an investigation into the treatment of the Channel 7 news reporters give further validity/further content for the article. — IVORK _Talk 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous reliable sources worldwide are devoting significant coverage to this particular event, and it seems quite clear that historians will describe this as a very significant episode in Trump's presidency. This article needs normal editing as time goes by, not deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church" is a better title than the original. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a better title exists, but to call this a visit to a church is just wrong. Something like "Trump photo op while waving a bible after his thugs violently suppress a peaceful assembly" would be far more appropriate. - MrX 🖋 12:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nerge! It is not very significant, and most of the outrage comes from the protests. It should be merged into the main article. RBolton123 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now. It's way too early to delete this. There's already been a massive amount of coverage in reliable sources about this, it continues to be discussed in reliable sources, and will probably only grow over time. It's arguably one of the biggest single events related to the George Floyd protests and as such, having its own article is appropriate. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's distinct from the protests, and content has been moved out from the protest articles. WP:GNG passed. starship .paint (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, if you merge this back to George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. - this would overwhelm the other article in terms of WP:WEIGHT. This article is significantly longer. starship .paint (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major event. If it is renamed the new name should reflect that neither the rector nor the archbishop was consulted. Given that church staff were forced off of the pavilion, I don't believe that invasion would be too strong, and visit falsely suggests that he was invited.. A merge would be acceptable. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many rectors this church has, but at least two have been named in sources which have been used in the page about the church: one "Rev. Robert Fisher" (Fox News tv interview and article), the other "Rector Gini Gerbasi" (post on Axios). – Athaenara ✉ 12:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rector Gini Gerbasi, who previously worked at St. John's on Lafayette Square and now works at the St. John's in nearby Georgetown..." Capewearer (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the many requests above. It was a significant event in the sense where despite being a photo op, involved the dispersal of many protestors and shifted the tide of the protests for a short while. Its involvement of many high-ranking officials such as the archbishop, as well as the sharp criticisms it lashed also indicates the significance of this move as a major event. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in some form) - The content should be kept either as a stand alone article or merged into the main article. Given the size of the content on this matter and the size of the main article would suggest that these are kept separate to avoid creating an excessively large article.Tracland (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Move any useful content into the appropriate article. Otherwise, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. KidAd (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While this may prove to be a moment of great significance, it's too soon to state such authoritatively. Merge until history proves it's worthy of its own article. Thmazing (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is notable enough just because of how random it was and how the peaceful protesters where dispersed with flash bangs and tear gas. — RealFakeKim T 09:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Cullen and Starship.paint above, with no prejudice against another rename, should this turn out to be part of a larger sequence of events. Easily meets WP:COVERAGE, WP:DEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE in coverage that focuses on this event and not the protest as a whole, and it's too early to judge WP:LASTING. Capewearer (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Lafayette Square Park ambush seeing as police moved in thirty minutes before curfew without warning protestors. This was a significant event in the protests timeline. There's also widespread condemnation around the world regarding this event. This is also a key event in our history regarding freedom of assembly and freedom of the press in the United States. Many historians agree this was a defining moment for the protests and Donald Trump's presidency. Miss HollyJ (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Y'all will try to censor anything that doesn't lick Trump's boots. Kire1975 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, WP:10YT, and WP:PURPOSE. History is being made right before our eyes. It's important not to lose meaningful content that documents a major nation's rapid descent into fascism. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect, as WP:NOTNEWS,WP:RECENTISM. You all have gone mental. I fully expect soon that we'll have articles on every single one of Trump's tweets. -- Netoholic @ 12:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for the existence of ghosts, and you're calling other editors "mental"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has become a topic of debate and discussion for scholars and historians. An essential component in providing an overall perspective of the George Floyd protests. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Protests article. This incident deserves a report there, maybe a paragraph, at most a subsection. It currently has two sentences which could be expanded a little. There is no way we should elevate this one incident to a standalone article, complete with a minute-by-minute timeline for heavens sake. This is an encyclopedia, not a liveblog. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename). As the sources reflect, this is hugely important. See, e.g., New York Times: "And when the history of the Trump presidency is written, the clash at Lafayette Square may be remembered as one of its defining moments." As of now, the use of violence against the lawfully assembled protesters at Lafayette Park has caused a rift between Trump and the Secretary of Defense (see CNN, Defense chief breaks with Trump on response to protests). This is not a "routine" or ordinary event. This is extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented in recent decades. Neutrality^talk 15:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those who think this is not notable should count the number of votes here... presently over thirty, which speaks to the notability in itself. Please also check Special:NewPages for a refresher in what's truly not notable...I won't point any examples out, but they're very easy to find there. Cellodont (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
further comment The article as it stands is a perfect example of one the several characteristic kinds of bad WP writing. In this case, it's bloat. When it comes down to it, this is one episode in the larger narrative of the protests, and it should be presented that way. Instead, because of the abundance of writing about the incident, and also, if I may be quite rude about it, because of the propensity of WP authors (I cannot bring myself to say "editors" because editing is the antithesis of what is happening here) to solve all issues by simply writing more, There are way too many words and way too much detail and way too many references; if any actual editing were going on, two-thirds of it would go away as excessive elaboration. And if it were pruned back to that, it would fit in an article on the protests without a problem. But it seems to me that any attempt to do any of this would be met with stiff opposition. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are no excessive details. As currently written, this page is MUCH better than most pages on scientific subjects or history/politics in other countries. This is probably because we have a lot more participants contributing to US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Capewearer's reasons. If this turns out to become just part of a bigger event that would supersede this visit, then it should be merged. But if not, this article should stay. Vida0007 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reliable sources for this incident to merit own article. I would be ok with merging it if it becomes part of a larger series of Trump visits or the like.Found5dollar (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is clearly pretty well sourced and has a lot of depth (more than I expected to be honest), enough for it to be its own article. Maybe it made sense when this requested was started, but currently it's the same size as George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., even though there's not really any extraneous information, so a merge doesn't make sense. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content deserves to exist somewhere, and it's too far out of the scope to include in George Floyd protests, which is already 170kB and likely to get longer. userdude 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per UserDude. This event specifically has had far to much public reaction and outcry to not be included somewhere and there doesn't seem to be a suitable place to merge it. - Aza24 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Lafayette Square Park ambush or something like that. The event is certainly notable at this point but I don't think the most important part was the church visit itself. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources indicating this is a major, pivotal event of historic importance.It has united Episcopalian clergy in furious denunciation [5], the participation of the Defense Secretary in the photo op resulted in "A former top official at the Pentagon, James Miller, resign(ing)... from his position on a Defense Advisory Board.... his decision was made over Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s participation in President Donald Trump’s photo op in front of St. John’s Church" [6] and is even splitting his conservative evangelical base the photo op was intended to appeal to[7]. Smeat75 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church, this is significant as a major and deliberate escalation of conflict, with international implications as well. . . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Allow a couple months for the events to settle out, and if it no longer seems notable enough to warrant a separate article, merge it into the page on George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. Coffeespoons (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now entitled, "Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church", as it is about the actions of President Trump and some in his administration attempting to assert a political position and to persuade public opinion about him, it is not not about the killing or the protesters and, as more is revealed, potentially may reveal significant abuse of power to achieve that objective, so consider it worthy of being a separate article. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The dealings of the President of the United States is not just random "news", this stuff has major impact on the whole country and the world.★Trekker (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm usually a little more WP:DELAY than WP:RAPID (i.e. I want to see lasting significance/coverage first), but I may exceptions when there's a reallllly good indication the coverage will continue. That seems to be the case here. No objection to renomination if, somehow, the coverage drops off in favor of the next terrible thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: this is a sterling example of WP:NOTNEWS. Ergo Sum 00:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So obviously not trivial. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 *'''Keep''' - I'm usually a little more [[WP:DELAY]] than [[WP:RAPID]] (i.e. I want to see lasting significance/coverage ''first''), but I may exceptions when there's a reallllly good indication the coverage will continue. That seems to be the case here. No objection to renomination if, somehow, the coverage drops off in favor of the next terrible thing. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 21:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''': this is a sterling example of [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User:Ergo Sum|'''<span style="color:#0645AD">Ergo Sum</span>''']]  00:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''': So obviously not trivial. [[User:Bangabandhu|Bangabandhu]] ([[User talk:Bangabandhu|talk]]) 01:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)