The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. The consensus is clear, although it is likely worth including, as one editor put it "a small amount of content about this" in 2017 Riyadh summit. bd2412 T 23:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump orb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This should be given the same treatment as "Longcat" was in 2006; delete and salt. KMF (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has extensive sourcing, it is hard to see how this does not meet wp:GNG. --doncram 03:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the proposer's rationale sums it up. Should we add "Not Know Your Meme" to WP:NOT?  Volunteer Marek  04:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:RECENTISM was responsible for making this brief media story appear more significant than it truly was. No WP:LASTING impact resulted from this and let us try to remember wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Make Wikipedia Great Again by deleting this article and enforcing WP:NOT. Believe me, it will be amazing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – well sourced article with significant media attention. MB298 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Not meme" is not policy and it's not true as Wikipedia contains articles about hundreds of memes from All your base are belong to us to Zinedine Zidane. We even have a substantial category of political memes. So, instead, our actual policy is that Wikipedia is not censored which means that we don't delete stuff just because some busybody doesn't like it. Andrew D. (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"NOTCENSORED"? Seriously? NOTCENSORED is NOT "anything I happen to like". Volunteer Marek  08:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTCENSORED has to do with content that's potentially offensive to someone, not all content that's just of questionable basic notability. And we maintain articles about memes that can demonstrate enduring significance that passes the ten-year test, not just every meme that exists. Also, Zinedine Zidane cleared our notability standards for footballers quite independently of any meme status he did or didn't have, so he's in no way a reason why it would be necessary to keep this. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge Anything involving Trump is going to generate intense coverage, we need more than that to demonstrate that this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. We'll have articles on the number of ice cream scoops he receives if we don't show some restraint. Portions of this may be useful at 2017 Riyadh summit though.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While it is true that the subject got extensive coverage at the time, not everything that the media focus on is worthy of a dedicated article on an encyclopedia. All those sources are solely centered on a news spike that only lasted for a week. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. LM2000 is right that at the depth of media coverage that Trump generates, we could eventually end up having to keep an article about every single object he so much as touches if the only standard we applied is "did it get a blip of press coverage at the time". To actually warrant an article, however, this would need to pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, which I'm not seeing any evidence that it does. LM2000 is also correct that a small amount of content about this at the article on the Riyadh summit would be acceptable, but it doesn't need its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Donald Trump in popular culture. Orb does not warrant its own article and should be included in the mentioned subarticle. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia. Neutrality^talk 19:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  None of the WP:NOT arguments work, not even the newly made up one.  This is not trivia, it is not not encyclopedic, and it doesn't get deleted because it is a meme.  Nor does it belong merged to another article.  It is just basic application of WP:GNG, which a review of the sources listed in the articles shows that it easily meets.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2017 Riyadh summit. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Violates WP:NOT, fails WP:N AND WP:GNG. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Of the 45 sources currently in the article, all fall within the first 2 weeks of the initial reporting and 80%+ fall within the first 3 days. Current "GNEWS searches". provides very few sources after the first 2 weeks and the few that appear after that period, "1"., "2"., "3"., "4"., none contain significant coverage. Clearly after 3 months this article does not have enduring notability. Neither WP:N and WP:GNG apply as both exclude stand alone articles that violate WP:NOT. CBS527^Talk 13:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - Why does this article exist? This is pure WP:NOT. Jdcomix (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that violates and is WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Mr. Anon515 15:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2017 Riyadh summit or Delete: A good sign that this falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS is that all of the sources are news articles dated from May 21st to May 30th. Basically it was a meme for a week and then it was forgotten. Compare to the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident which has a song inspired by it, and continued coverage and discussion to the modern day. Who knows, maybe 50 years from now the Trump Orb will be the subject of similar lasting notability, in which case this article can be recreated with sources that aren't just pundits talking about it on the day it happens, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL or orb for that matter. We could create an "in popular culture" section on 2017 Riyadh summit and give a brief blurb on the Trump orb. That would be proportionate coverage IMO. This article is not. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are many good arguments above. This is Wikipedia not a Newspaper or Know Your Meme. PartyPresident (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are many good arguments above. This is Wikipedia not a Newspaper or Know Your Meme. The GNG does exist, though. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet the GNG in any way shape or form. PartyPresident (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, VOX, Business Insider, TIME, CNBC. Glad to hear those don't count as multiple independent in-depth RS.L3X1 (distænt write) 13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: are you aware that, as per the policy, WP:GNG only confers an assumption of notability that may be undone by the article being WP:NOT material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnusertop (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever wrote that, I didn't get your ping. Yes, I am aware of this useless hypocrisy, so IAR. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUSTAINED. It's very telling that the coverage around this incident died down within a week after the meme sprouted up. Mr. Anon515 16:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Alot of internet memes are receiving way more coverage than they did a decade ago, so the nominator's argument doesn't hold any water.Americanfreedom (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt WP:RECENT and WP:NOT. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the salt part, per User:HighFlyingFish, below. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - As noted above, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of memes. This is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the salt, per User:HighFlyingFish. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I totally support delete, but why Salt? On the off chance this meme ends up passing the Wikipedia:10 year test (it almost certainly won't given that based on the sources, it doesn't seem to have passed a one month test, but who knows, I'm not psychic) I don't see why we should stop re-creation of this article. If people recreate it identically or otherwise try to circumvent this discussion that's what Db-repost (Speedy Deletion Criteria 4) is for. Has this page been deleted and disruptively re-created in the past? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the policy at WP:SALT is that salting is only for pages that have been "deleted but repeatedly recreated", which is not the case here. The policy suggest other measures for per-emptive creation protection. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. No lasting coverage. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a non encyclopedic collection of trivia. No lasting societal impact & no subsequent coverage. A flash-in-the-pan type of an event. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:Notnews; passing trivia. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per HighFlyingFish above. Lack of continued coverage. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - new school newsy trivia, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep/At least merge into 2017 Riyadh summit (or maybe Donald Trump on social media)/Probably rename — OK, so I'm not sold on the inelegant title "Trump orb" (it wasn't even his orb!). But this rises to a level beyond just a "meme"—and incidentally, the main difference between notable political moments like this, and ones in the past, is that we just didn't use the word "meme" yet. (Was Clinton's reference to Sister Souljah a "meme"? What about this? Point is, plenty of peripheral political minutia is "notable" in context.) Trump touching the orb was notable in many people's minds because it marked a very visual turn from Trump's declared "anti-globalist" policies on his campaign to the realities of his governance. Wikipedia has to balance policies like WP:RECENT and perceived "RECENTist" tendencies with the RECENTist reality of culture outside Wikipedia itself. People are interested in encyclopedic assessment of moments like this—a place where a range of commentary and sources are assembled and balanced in line with other Wikipedia policies. Further, it's the kind of thing that people will continue to look up over time. Naturally, interest spiked months ago, but that's the long tail in action—and the end of the long tail has value, too. At the very least, a summary section on this should be merged into 2017 Riyadh summit, maybe a mention on Donald Trump on social media. —BLZ · talk 17:04, 22 September 2017 (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.