Trump v. United States (2024): Trump was indicted for election obstruction and filed motions to dismiss the indictment on the basis of presidential immunity, now to be decided by the Supreme Court.  This is already covered at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)#Immunity dispute .  My redirect to that article was reverted on the incorrect claim that "the cases are different", and I don't see the need for a separate article at this point.  Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — United States v. Trump has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, only the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision, thus making Trump v. United States a separate case.  If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is not immune from prosecution, United States v. Trump will continue to play out.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nearly all SCOTUS cases are standalone notable, and while the details so far of this case are part of the Federal prosecution article, the question of presidential immunity is a self-contained aspect of that, so it is reasonable to have a separate page to cover the SCOTUS case.  This should be done by moving the existing content into the SCOTUS page case (along with appropriate attribution), and leaving a summary in place.  Alternatively, when the case is ultimately decided, and can be summarized briefly on the prosecution page, then the details can go into the SCOTUS page.  Either way, there will eventually be a separate page for the case so deletion makes no sense.  -- M asem ( t ) 03:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why was this AFD started just a few hours after this article was created?  Is there some kind of urgency about it?  Quick AFD nomination just seems to happen a lot with article based on news and politics.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator is opposed to most, if not all page splits.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This wasn't a page split, it was a single sentence.  Was there really some kind of urgency to get this still-mostly-empty page started?  You could have at least done what Masem recommends, but instead this page provides no further information.  Reywas92 Talk 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was noting your position on page creations, not that I disagree.  I typically write articles from the ground up but publish them early in order to avoid any conflicts, furthered by the existence of Trump v. United States , the special master case.  Nominating stubs without giving due time is WP:TOOSOON , and I wasn't going to let this article remain a stub.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As Masem said, this is a notable case in the Supreme Court and its widespread precedent on Wikipedia to have standalone articles for cases like this.  Timetorockknowlege ( talk ) 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Already seems to pass WP:GNG .  Don't really understand the nomination.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The only good argument for deletion/draftification I could see here is WP:TOOSOON , but I don't think it's too soon to start this article, given that cert has been granted and there's already significant coverage of the case.  Regarding the nominator's point that this is part of the election obstruction case, while true, Supreme Court cases take on a life of their own beyond the individual case, and this article would eventually need to be split from the election obstruction article, so I don't see a point of merging it now.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: it's a high-profile pending Supreme Court case.  CarpCharacin ( talk ) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is a notable topic.  103.65.140.93 ( talk ) 10:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep