Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Knitwitted (talk | contribs) at 10:57, 11 November 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference

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

Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a collection of news. Not to mention it has no sources, and I believe it belongs in draft or needs to be deleted. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 21:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of 254 instances of substantial coverage seems to belie that statement... indeed you apparently couldn't be troubled to include even a single one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep given the ongoing media coverage and the likelihood of the event having enduring cultural significance. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS, less notable than the church photo op. Unless there is a suitable redirect target, but I don't know what. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS @User101010: this event is nothing like Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church aside from the fact that Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Dylsss(talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs extensive improvement but I think there should be an article about this event which has been much discusssed in the news media - there are articles about it in the Independent, Guardian, Vox, The Atlantic, Huff Post, Metro and New York Times, not to mention smaller local papers {Google News results}. It's notable that it was the event / place where someone (Giuliani) was trying to give a press conference about the Trump campaign's next move but instead learned of Biden's win (and was rather dismissive of that news). It seems almost plausible (though, granted - hearsay) that the location was actually intended given that previous press conferences that week were signal jammed by Biden supporters shouting 'Count Every Vote' and a DJ playing music to drown out one of the speakers. Apparently a quieter location was planned to avoid that, though I still struggle to believe they intentionally chose this location. The confusion is said to have arisen after Trump, who was given correct info about the location by phone, misheard and (understandably, given his hotel business) related to his Twitter followers that it was being held in the 'Four Seasons'.
"Earlier in the week, Bondi and Lewandowski attempted to hold a press conference in the city following a court decision that allowed poll watchers to stand just 6 feet from workers counting ballots, rather than 20 feet. They tried to spin the ruling as a win; however, a DJ nearby blasted Beyoncé music and completely drowned out their remarks."[1]
"In reality, the mistake was not in the booking, but in a garbled game of telephone. Mr. Giuliani and the Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski told the president on Saturday morning their intended location for the news conference and he misunderstood, assuming it was an upscale hotel, according to multiple people familiar with the matter."[2]

Comedy ensued. JoBrodie (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Trump legal team's failed Four Seasons press conference, explained". Vox. 8 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
  2. ^ "Which Four Seasons? Oh, not that one". The New York Times. 28 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
No, the event is IMO notable but the company is not, independently of the event. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! User101010 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep and source adequately. The question for anyone !voting here on notability grounds is not whether the article is unsourced as it presently stands. It is, if reliable independent sources are added, is it notable? The Washington Post has written a whole article about this. So has The New York Times. If something in American national politics is covered so extensively, so non-trivially, by those two news organizations and yet remains non-notable, then every word of our notability policies is nullified. (Oh, it wasn't just American media. I haven't found any foreign-language coverage yet, but I bet it will be there since there were foreign journalists present).

    In these delete !votes, I read the subtext of "OK, it's notable, but it shouldn't be". Too bad. We do not allow ourselves to decide that—if we did, we wouldn't have the Streisand effect article when we did. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • But this seems to be recentism -- something that some editors believe deserves an encyclopedia article because it was covered in several newspapers in the last 24 hours. I'm sure we could find some minor events that were the subject of articles in multiple major newspapers during, say, the Warren Harding administration, but Wikipedia editors are not as interested in those events because they didn't show up in their Facebook feeds today. At best, this conference seems to be an aspect of Donald Trump's overall effort to contest the election results, although I can't find a separate Wikipedia article about that yet; if there is one, this press conference could get a sentence or two there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia editors are not as interested in those events because they didn't show up in their Facebook feeds today." Which does not mean they aren't still notable now (cf. Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House) Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the comparison helps us to conclude anything either way about this press conference. All the citations in Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House published at least 70 years after the dinner, including a book about the dinner published 112 years later. We can speculate as to what events of the Trump administration historians will be most interested in many years from now, but that doesn't mean that we need to put all of them into the encyclopedia now. To take another perspective, we have broken up the Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency into at least 17 articles, with one more to come for early 2021, whereas we only have 14 events listed in the single article Timeline of the Herbert Hoover presidency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proper historical research could probably extend the latter to almost the same amount. "Recentism" can also mean a bias in favor of more recent events where we can easily find sources through keyboard taps rather than odysseys through large college libraries and archives. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has now been significantly improved and is not comparable to the stub it was yesterday. --Fippe (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Fippe's observation, with perhaps a mind to come back in a month or two and evaluate whether it holds up as a notable event with more distance BlackholeWA (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although as I wouldn't be averse to it being condensed into a larger page on the transition, especially if it proves to be a drawn out and unusual process Frobird (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way it has been framed as the "last moment of Donald Trump's presidency" and the unusual choice of location/tweet mixups leading to a significant amount of attention are why I think it deserves to be singled out versus the many other press conferences or campaign events which were not as singularly important.Frobird (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This AfD could serve as a case study in rushing to nominate an article for deletion before editors have had a chance to flesh it out and, in so doing, justify its existence. In this instance, the AfD was posted just 14 minutes after the article was created. It is an abuse of process and should be closed as Keep. NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - revisit Hello again from the obviously biased creator of this article. I like the idea from BlackholeWA to keep it up for a month or two to give it a chance and then revisit. I really didn't think this article would get so much immediate attention with editing the article and with discussing deletion. I came to Wikipedia to read more about it and was surprised to not see an article on it. I'm not a regular editor, so I just created it with the intention of just getting it started as a stub and then making it better. Many thanks for everyone's ideas here.  :-) User101010 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it is now completely meets WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG. The early delete !votes cast before sources were added to the article should carry little weight..-- P-K3 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It's gained a surprising amount of coverage from many new outlets, including some from outside the US. Strong WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm Bacon 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and reconsider in one month. This article looks good now, but I feel it's really a case of WP:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. An individual press conference doesn't necessarily deserve an article, just because a lot of journalists laughed at it. And the business certainly isn't notable outside of this event. If a month from now, people are still talking about 'Four Seasons Total Landscaping', then keep it; but if it's passed from the media memory and just become one of many other strange events in 2020 that briefly attracted interest, it would be best being merged somewhere else or deleted. Robofish (talk)
  • Keep widely covered in the news as respresentative of a larger pattern of behaviour and a metaphor for the Trump campaign. John Cummings (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS means we don't write like a newspaper; not that we can't write about things that are in the news. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite the substantial media coverage, I share the sentiment of Robofish above. All of the sources so far are news coverage, so WP:NOTNEWS persists as a concern (we often interpret coverage of a single event from multiple news outlets as only one source notability-wise). We don't yet know whether this event will have an enduring legacy or just become a single trivia line when the historical accounts of Trump's presidency are written, in which case it would fail the WP:PERSISTENCE section of the WP:NEVENTS guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to point out in relation to the sources, there is one that is purely a transcript rather than news and another one is an obituary. Itisdiplomatic (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And your point? Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to WP:NOTNEWS, a significant portion of the article, particularly in the Event subheading, contains information that relates to and is based upon the transcript citation, as opposed to news sources. Itisdiplomatic (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we do not provide any unattributed interpretation or analysis of the transcript, just restating what it says, it can be used as a source.

As for the obit, I added it because there was a dispute as to whether the transcript or the Inquirer article gave the proper spelling of a name. The latter source mentioned the obituary, so I searched for it, and that settled the question.

Really, though, this has no bearing on this AfD. This discussion is properly held on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Richard Nixon's November 1962 press conference, where he famously said: "You don't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." NedFausa (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another answer: I think it's that it's the whimper at the end of Trump's campaign. A tiny venue, not on the scale of previous press conferences, and journalists packing up while it's happening because the election result had been called, and in Biden's favour. The incident seems notable for that, not to mention that it has had fairly extensive coverage, and the fact that it's amusing is just a bonus.JoBrodie (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cummings: I don't think there are any; it is strictly up to the individual !voters to reconsider their earlier votes if they desire for the remainder of the week and leave things up to a closing admin. This sort of rescue is, after all, one of the possible outcomes contemplated by the process. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this article may eventually be considered NOTNEWS (in a couple of years), for the moment it is current and relevant. I came here trying to understand someone's reference to "Four Seasons Total Landscaping", and this cleared it up perfectly; the article is properly fulfilling the purpose of any article on Wikipedia, to inform.184.0.143.99 (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this event seems to have taken on a reputation far more extensive than your regular "dumb thing that happened during the Trump administration", it seems to have acquired a somewhat symbolic value, which means I reckon it has a good chance of passing WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS. If not, it can always be deleted later. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event is a massive win in terms of fun in an otherwise sad and serious year (covid, wildfires, hurricanes, etc.). Agree, it can be deleted at some point (if necessary) to conform with WP rules, but for now, please consider retaining said article. Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Four_Seasons_Total_Landscaping_press_conference&oldid=988145850"