Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe
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
— User:Mr, 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:EVENTS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:LASTING||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:DEPTH||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:DIVERSE (Wikipedia:Notability)