Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raid of Mar-a-Lago

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. This is an early closure per WP:SNOW. It is evident that there is going to be no consensus for deleting the article. The dispute is between keeping the article and merging it elsewhere. Whether and where to merge the article to is a discussion better suited to the article talk page, where it can be pursued without the distraction of people commenting on a possible deletion. Sandstein 16:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raid of Mar-a-Lago

[edit]

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

Raid of Mar-a-Lago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. There's not enough information yet to be able to expand this topic into a full-fledged article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the main Mar-a-Lago article. Marioedit8 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The page was nominated for deletion not even 10 minutes after being created. There is plenty more to add. However, there is already a ton of coverage including internationally. The home of a former president being raided is very notable and is unprecedented. The page can also be expanded based upon Republican's response - such as claims to defund the FBI or McCarthy saying he will subpoena Garland. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The claims made by Mr. Trump are unsubstantiated, and while likely true, no RSes have claimed as such. It's also very uncommon, if at all, for articles based on FBI raids to be created. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Patience, Patience -- This story just broke, and no one knows where it is going to go. While it may have been premature to put up a Wikipedia page so soon, it is up. Better to keep it up, and later merge it with the larger article on Mar-a-Lago if nothing significant develops. The option of merging it now, and then having to break it out is both awkward, and wasteful of time and energy. And, articles about former President Trump easily take on a life of their own. 2603:8081:4900:55C6:AC73:75AE:D0B0:81F8 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep let the page improve it's still new MrMemer223 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: We don't have a crystal ball, so we cannot ascertain if this incident unto itself will bring about criminal charges, thereby exposing something noteworthy - we simply don't. Is it worthy of its own subsection on Mar-a-Lago? For now, absolutely. But, until we have a clearer picture, we should treat it as a mention on the Mar-a-Lago page. BOTTO (T•C) 03:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Keep in mind, this page being potentially a big story is not a valid reason to keep it in mainspace. It's notable enough to be mentioned in Mar-a-Lago's article, for sure, but the details regarding the raid are still murky. Worst case scenario, the page can just be recreated without objection. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm leaning towards keep but only because by the end of the week this could be a much larger thing. If this fizzles out and is nothing then lets just merge it. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not even been a day. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same vestige, I can say Delete it hasn't even been a day. Curbon7 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can say, confidently, that at least 50% of articles here began in a less-than-favorable state. They need time to flesh out. This becomes this. This becomes this. And this becomes this. So no, you cannot, by the same vestige, vote delete. In the hours since this was AfD'd, the length has already increased. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth be told, most of these discussions should be "unpublish" discussions. The issue here is this page was moved to the mainspace way too early. There is such a rush here to publish an article that contains so little information. The principle of "let's just publish the article and flesh it out later" simply is not how this site is supposed to work. If we are talking about an in-progress event that we absolutely know will be able to be fleshed out enough to not be likely subject to a merge later there is wisdom to posting like this, but if nothing pertinent is found in this raid, this is an easy merge. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major story. All indication is that coverage will continue as the week goes on. I think this nomination was a bit premature. Sometimes it is best to wait a few days to afd articles like this to see if coverage quickly subsides and lasting significance is not demonstrated. Thriley (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Making a TOOSOON AfD against a developing story like this seems very unproductive when an AfD discussion runs for at least 7 days anyway, which is plenty of time for people to determine whether the event is notable or not. It might be easy to recreate the article if it's determined to be notable, but it's even easier to just leave it until there's more consensus. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The single biggest thing I hate on all of this website is the need some editors have to be the first to create an article on a recent event, no mind to quality or sourcing. It's idiocy, and I wish we took more action to dissuade it. That said, this is certainly a notable event. Coverage is wide and significant and it gets over the WP:NOTNEWS hurdle by the fact of who it is. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. singularly notable event in American history.

Saintstephen000 (talk)

  • Keep, this seems like an event that would pass WP:10YT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Just, way, way too soon. For all of those saying this event will be notable, as a 1st, everything needs to happen a 1st time if it does happen. We can say in the merged article that this event was a 1st time event. The reality is, it's way too soon to know if this raid will actually have a large impact, if any at all, on future indictment. Once we know more about the findings of the raid, I would suggest re-publishing, but this article is way too heavy on "Reactions" at the moment, something that all these politics-related articles have, but really is the least important part. Is this event significant? Yes. Is it going to be significant enough to where it simply needs to be a separate article? That's Crystal Ball right there. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Classic WP:109PAPERS, except with 100 less papers, making it worse. No thanks. 12.5.215.114 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- seriously? Why is this being proposed for deletion? This is the first time this has happened in American history, and I'm sure we will be talking about this event for years to come, even if (in the very unlikely circumstance) Trump is never indicted. Please stop making obviously spurious deletion proposals. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NETRUMP 12.5.215.114 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with anything? Besides, Trump didn't even do this. The FBI did. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Plenty of other current events of equal or even less political significance have gotten articles this quickly with the same amount or less of content in them, considering the potential this has to be an extremely major story and the fact reputable news sources are already producing a large amount of coverage for it, it would be extremely unwise to delete an article that will inevitably need to be recreated later anyways. This clearly merits more than just a mention on the main Mar-a-Lago article. 2601:405:4400:9420:5175:B20E:F653:2E42 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If Sharpiegate gets an article, why shouldn't this? TaserTot (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what it's about at all, as former presidents are not immune from prosecution in the United States. It's also not the case that only Republicans can investigate Republicans. (Wray was picked by Trump, not Biden) The FBI is a law enforcement agency, not a military agency, but you know this. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL then I suppose this was a "federal raid" on a sovereign nation of free peoples? --SinoDevonian (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The FBI raiding the home of a former president is of historical importance. Thus it's important to provide encyclopedic information. 93.224.105.112 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now let it mellow. Currently/was recently the no.1 story on BBC news (UK).--SinoDevonian (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is notable enough to have its own article. Vida0007 (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely covered in numerous mainstream media, including multiple reliable sources. The article is short but what's there is sourced and demonstrates notability. Meets WP:NEVENT for me, particularly WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. It appears the AfD was the thing that was TOOSOON - only a few hours after the news broke, before many publications could begin to cover it. Modest Genius talk 11:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination was too WP:RAPID; lets see how the article develops. Already, there's enough for an article, but this is of WP:LASTING, historical importance and sure to expand as more information becomes available. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete This is a small event of a larger story, though the problem is that we don't know which story it is yet (related to papers claims to have been taken from WH, or part of the Jan 6 hearings?) It should be documented, but this is not a major standalone story and a violation of NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 12:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It’s a minor occurrence in an investigation rumored to be taking place. Law enforcement officers execute search warrants all the time. The fact that the premises belong to a former president is the only reason this one is newsworthy but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It’s possible that this will turn into Trump/GOP/Carlson/Fox’s next "Hunter Biden laptop" conspiracy theory but at the moment it’s an isolated law enforcement action. The name of the page violates WP:NPOVTITLE. Sounds as though the FBI broke down the door with a battering ram but according to RS the FBI searched the premises with a search warrant. When RS use "raid", they are quoting Trump (NBC, WaPo, Guardian, NYT, NPR, Politico, CBS). The page shouldn’t be merged with Mar-a-Lago or Donald Trump; the search is already mentioned on both pages, with more detail than necessary in the Mar-a-Lago article IMO but that can be fixed after the hullaballoo has died down. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS, TOOSOON and WP:RECENTISM. A couple sentences in the main article on Trump may be warranted, but at this point not more than that. The long-term significance here is unclear and the tabloid like coverage can mostly be credited to Trump who is a lightning rod for the news media. That's not to say this is insignificant. But as others have pointed out, warrants are issued all the time. If this turns out to be a major event leading to criminal charges, then we can always recreate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A federal warrant against a former President of the United States would not be sought or approved by a judge unless there was already substantial evidence against that person. The long term significance here is crystal clear- this is historically unprecedented. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While what you note is partly true; it is likely that there is evidence of criminal activity or no warrant would have been issued, that is not relevant. This is crystalballing and evidence does not equate to a charge. Just because he is a former POTUS does not mean we waive BLP and start giving UNDUE coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For the first time in American history, a former president's home has been searched during a law enforcement investigation. This article will definitely stand the test of time. Besides that, the AFD nomination was too soon. Juneau Mike (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raid_of_Mar-a-Lago&oldid=1103420043"