Deletion of Covfefe

Comment: I had also PRODed the article as a clear case of . There is no enduring notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The latest in the endless barrage of Trump hysteria around here. Article and subject fail WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE and the |Ten Year Test. That's four strikes. If someone wants to insert a line into the Trump social media article I won't oppose it. But more than that is giving this waaay more attention than it deserves. Seriously? We are creating articles about a Twitter fail? Every day this place is looking more and more like an anti-Trump tabloid news site. (And FTR I can't stand the man
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)

Comment: It is not . It's a tweet, nothing more than a tweet! This is a  and not a tabloid. Got a lot of media attention and was° soon gone again. Wikipedia is not  or . It's nothing we need in a week
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA||WP:NEWS||WP:SOC)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media. Funny things Trump says on Twitter are reported as routine coverage . –&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: not encyclopedic, not noteworthy,   
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: It's far  to determine whether this incident will have any lasting significance, and if so what. In the meantime we don't need to cover it: |that's what newspapers are for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:EVENT says ''Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards''. This has already been covered in a variety of sources, each of that are very different from the next. This is being analyzed overwhelmingly as the very meaning of this word is being guessed. It was received a tremendous |depth of coverage, another criteria that renders it notable. |We are also not supposed to rush to delete articles, especially if it's not a . We should at least let this remain another week or two before such consideration so we can see what happens. Given that this is an event, and this meets so many criteria for a notable event and is notable as an event, it might be worth calling it "Covfefe incident" in order to better comply. Special:Contributions/96.95.28.1|96.95.28.1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:DEPTH||WP:RAPID||WP:BLP)

Comment: to Donald Trump on social media. Sure, it meets GNG. We can still have information on it. But an entire article on one trivial tweet and the news cycle it took over? 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTUPID)

Comment: I'll quickly dispense with the ''presumed notability'' of WP:GNG. Significant coverage - there are 41 citations in the article at this moment, spanning WashPo, Politico, New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, and BBC's Newsbeat as a few examples. This is just a handful of the many sources dedicated to covering this one tweet and that's just what's in the article now.  Reliable - refer to the previous list, the answer is self-evident. Sources - again look at the previous list, all of these are secondary sources. Independent of the Subject - Yes. So, it meets presumed notability. I see a lot of NOTNEWS arguments above, I'd turn to  rather than  for this, but, I'll cover both anyway. In terms of NOTNEWS I think {{tq|Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion}} is most relevant. It's a fair point, but, the main feature is "enduring notability". The question is, is this a five minute talking point that will disappear from the collective memory of mankind by the end of the week, year, or will it remain for ten. |Crystal balling aside, I can't really say one way or another, but, it'll live on as a minor thing that a few people will look at every now and then. By the end of the month 99% of the initial traffic will be gone, but, that's true of almost every single event based article on the encyclopaedia. Pick any major event we have an article for and look at the traffic received on the day of the event, one day after, one month after, and one year after. I picked the https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-07-14&end=2017-06-05&pages=2016_Nice_attack 2016 Nice attack as an example. On the day of the event it received 250,000+ views. By the next day it had dropped to 75,000. By the end of the week that was down to 25,000. By the same day the next month at 2,500. What do you know, exactly 1% of the traffic that existed on day 1. Now it's receiving a total of about 1,000 views a day. Compare it to https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-05-14&end=2017-06-05&pages=Covfefe Covfefe which is now at one week old news. Day 1; 28,000 views, Day 2: 50,000 views, Day 6: 7075 views. By the end of the month, I project it'll be receiving about 50 views a day. I'd personally look at this from the notability events guideline. Unless Covfefe enters the common parlance, and it probably won't, it won't have much of a '''lasting effect''' beyond the occassional person getting a laugh out of it. So no, it probably won't meet . As for ; {{tq|Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage '''should not be the sole basis for creating an article'''}}, while the Covfefe event went global, it shouldn't be the only reason for this article existing. Next comes  - {{tq|In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines}}. The tweet left everyone puzzled. What came next is news sources, internet discussion boards, and regular old pundits trying to work out the meaning of the word covfefe and meaning of the tweet as whole. One word; Analysis. Just read the interpretation section of this article to see it for yourself. Then we get to , like I've said above, it'll persist, but, only in a very minor sense. Last, but not least, ; {{tq|Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source}}. Refer to my list a while ago, it's a diverse array of sources. Where does this leave us? honestly, I'd like to keep the article. It's fairly well written, uses an array of good sources and goes into some detail. It's also just a hilarious article. Failing that, however, this should be merged into Donald Trump's use of social media where it already has a small dedicated section that links to the main article currently under discussion
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:LASTING||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:DEPTH||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:DIVERSE)

Comment: per . This has plenty of |staying power. Many new words are coined every day by lesser known people. But this one came from the President of the United States, thereby leading to it |the likelihood this will be a permanent fixture in the culture. Not a candidate for merging either, because the |size of this article has the potential to be so large. There is the expectation this article will be extremely large due to the theories regarding the word's meaning, which will be interpreted differently by different sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:LASTING||WP:ANTICIPATION||WP:SIZE)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media., per  and User:Anna Frodesiak
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per above.  suggests covering stories that have lasting impact, and the converse. Something like Binders full of women (cited above), while its notability is questionable, at least relates to important policy issues about the representation of women, sexism, feminism, etc, and attracted a policy-based response. This topic is highly unlikely to have any policy implications, any lasting effect on the Trump administration, or any wider consequences. Sheer trivia
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is not even news, it's literally just distracting noise, and is unlikely to ever meet   —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: to Donald Trump on social media (per Enterprisey above).  and , maybe this should just be put on :n:|Wikinews instead? (I know  talks about the content of an article, but I think it can also be applied to article subjects
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:10YEARS)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTUPID)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media. A separate article could be spun out later if it meets , but it's too early to tell yet
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''merge''' to larger article Twitter activity of Donald Trump. This meets , bigly.http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/donald-trump-covfefe
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia:Recentism effect of a relatively minor twitter typo/mistake. |Wikipedia isn't a NPOV news outlet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media. Per , we do not do running news reporting and commentary, and frankly there's not much to say here except the tweet and the reactions to it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: with Donald Trump's use of social media. While it may not be , judging from the headlines this morning, it's certainly not justified as a single article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: with extreme prejudice. The fact that a German embassy explodes at roughly the same time, and yet a typo on Twitter is on the front page of every newspaper, accurately sums up what I think of the argument that it has coverage. Blatantly unencyclopedic excuse for somebody to get yet another negative Trump article on Wikipedia (and, by extension, Google). See  and also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FART)

Comment: Wikipedia is an  encyclopaedia and not a newspaper, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: After spending some time in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not archives, there is a pretty sizable  misapplication going on here. None of the 4 points under notnews have been met here, particularly the "routine news" of #2. This is not "routine news", this is a flurry of national an international discussion of the event. Yes it is an event, this isn't just about a famous person making a tweet typo but rather the President of the US, a persona with a propensity for bombastic social media presence who made a bizarre, mangled, half-sentence tweet in the early morning hours.  should be the one to judge by, and IMO we're certainly in or nearing the "very likely to be notable" standard of .  "WP:Notnews" is a misnomer and should be retitled "NotRoutineNews
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NEVENT||WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media. The present version of Donald Trump's use of social media is quite |short. Wikipedians' energy would better be spent in making Donald Trump's use of social media into a solid article rather than keeping this symbolically important typo as a single article. Several mainstream media commentators have argued that the typo is symbolically important (refs in present version of covfefe) - e.g. could nuclear war result from an accidental cofveve type tweet by the US President? But the importance is within the context of Trump's casual approach to tweeting. ''Covfefely yours
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:LENGTH)

Comment: Stop making rystal assertions about "lack of lasting notability" or the like. We already had this discussion concerning United Express Flight 3411 incident
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: to Donald Trump on social media (or just '''Redirect''' since it's covered there to the extent it probably needs to be already). . The merge seems pretty straightforward to me. This is a clear subtopic, with a good number of sources, but little indication it will have lasting significance/coverage to such an extent that a stand-alone article is needed. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: or '''Redirect''' - there is no way a typo in a tweet, what? three days ago? can be said to have had  coverage, and all of the assurances that it will remain a phenomenon are just .  Likewise, exactly how much needs to be said about it?  The two paragraphs on the Donald Trump on social media page adequately summarize the incident, so no merge is needed.   This is no more article-worthy than Spicer hiding in the bushes or Marco Rubio's hands both of which also received significant coverage for the proverbial 15 minutes.  We can expect there to be some story coming out of the White House daily, and we don't need an article on every one of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Eventually at least. This is classic , but because it is currently in the news we're seeing a lot of keeps from people currently aware or invested in the story
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Should be merged with Donald Trump on social media.  says "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Even now, a week later, no news outlet will be reporting on it since it has already been reported on and there is nothing to update on
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media and strip down to a sentence or two. A standalone for this? We are not the moronic mainstream media who will write '''''"Trump drops nail clippers...then glances down at them!"''''' Would Encyclopedia Britannica have covered this sort of thing in 1973 when that publication mattered? This is pure   and . It will not endure. It is pure facepalm for '''us''' and Earth. Covering this makes us appear more like a tabloid than a proper encyclopedia. It sets a precedent too that we will host/publish anything.  GNG? The media will cover anything he does, making everything GNG. We have to respond to GNG with "however..." and  and  does that
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FART||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FART)

Comment: Seriously? Wikinews is over there. It violates  to say that this incident will have ''any'' sort of  a so-called "cultural imapct," major or no. Once again people should not gaze into their . To have such a large article about what is likely a typo also runs afoul of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:SENSATION)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media. Very useless and unneeded article in violation of 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: with Donald Trump's use of social media. Per , this is an event that is part of an encyclopedic topic, but is not in and of itself encyclopedic. —&#160;&#160
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: clearly meets , with the amount of secondary independent coverage it's receiving. Could consider a merge down the line, but it has enough material for its own article right now. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Donald Trump's use of social media. We need not create articles on Trump's every belch and fart. It's  to gauge long term notability,  applies
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The presidential use and misuse of language is highly |notable as entire books are written about the topic such as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gdd8BgAAQBAJ Talking with the President: The Pragmatics of Presidential Language'' — "...what the president says is not necessarily what the president means."   We have plenty of articles about other historical examples including Return to normalcy|Normalcy; Ich_bin_ein_Berliner#"I'm_a_doughnut"_urban_legend|Ich bin ein Berliner; Michigander; Lunatic fringe; &c. These demonstrate that such coinages do tend to have enduring notability as they are remembered and written about centuries later.  See also  – "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: Very obviously  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The option to merge with Donald Trump on social media would have been valid had the artice been a stub. Given that it's not a stub, the merge option should not be invoked. The  reason given in the nomination is flawed.  is for routine news coverage. This is obviously not routine, and it is also not news. It is now an internet meme which passes the  threshold. Special:Contributions/96.41.32.39|96.41.32.39
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: Seriously?  Not news.  Not a dictionary, even of nonexistent words.  And most important, this can only be a  article which will either heap disdain or praise on Trump rather than anything encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: to Donald Trump on social media. Per , an event is likely to be notable if it has widespread impact or historical significance. An event is unlikely to be notable if it consists of viral phenomena. I have failed to see any evidence of historical significance, widespread impact or of the incident being a passing; it seems like a pretty cut and dry case of viral phenomena that got a short burst of media coverage. The incident is still getting some media coverage (although it has declined pretty quickly), and some editors argue that the article should be kept per . I do not believe this is an appropriate use of the guideline. It is reasonable to keep articles on events such as military invasions, major disasters, deaths of uber notable individuals, or any other event where there is a high likelihood of meeting notability requirements in the near future. This is not the case for the covfefe article, which shows little evidence of lasting impact. I believe that it is however appropriate to cover the incident in the Donald Trump on social media article. As the article already gives reasonably comprehensive coverage of covfefe, I am voting redirect rather than merge
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRIT||WP:RAPID)

Comment: Selective or slight merge) to Donald Trump on social media. This should redirect readers to a general article abut the notable subject of a president's tweeting excesses. That will preserve the rights of contributors to this article. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything which gets a splash of news media coverage, per . I don't think we  have an article about the boil on George Washington's butt which made him lie on his side while performing his duties in the first months of his presidency, nor on the hole in candidate Stevenson's shoe which was on the front page of every newspaper during a 1950's campaign,  on Wilson growing a beard when he was palsied and couldn't shave, on every time Ford tripped over his own feet, on Johnson lifting his dog by the ears, on every single individual malapropism of GW Bush ,nor on literally hundreds of other news items about presidential politics which got widespread news coverage. It is a typo for pity's sake. It doesn't even rise to the importance of the elder Bush  puking at a diplomatic dinner. Mention little incidents in the context of an article about the person or in this case an article about one aspect of the person's career
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)