Simon Stagg – Overturn / Moot. Essentially unanimous consensus here that the original delete close should not stand. But moot since the title has already been redirected (although not to the target suggested in the original AfD) and the history has already been restored, so there's nothing left to do here. If somebody thinks there's a better redirect target, that's something that can be hashed out in talkspace without need for further DRV involvement. – -- RoySmith(talk) 20:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dennis Brown provided a novel analysis, in which he discounted every single !vote and agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted. While his detailed rationale and cordial response to my raising the topic are commendable, the fact remains that the numerical !vote was 5 vs. the nominator to not delete the article. Dennis Brown erred in counting the 2 merges and redirect as opinions favoring deletion, based on his own reading of how future editing might look. Multiple sources and another merge target had been raised in the discussion, and while it pains me to call it that, the close amounts to an inappropriate supervote, and as such either a relist or a no consensus outcome would have been preferable. Discussion with closing admin Dennis Brown concludes hereJclemens (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Affirm my close This is less controversial than it seems. The target for merging was just a single name "list of" without any significant additional information. The name had already been added to the list, so there was no more material that could be merged; it was by all definitions, complete. By asking for a merge or redirect, the three editors (plus the one nominator) are in effect saying the article should not exist as a stand alone article. The two keep votes were completely void of any policy basis. There were 4 people saying the article should not exist as it stands, and two people using invalid rationales for keeping it. Not one policy based "keep" vote was cast. No matter which particular words are used to express it, since there was nothing left to be merged before deleting, the only logical interpretation was that the consensus of policy based responses was to make the article go away, ie: delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... except that one editor had already proposed expanding the identified target/character list from mere mentions to summaries. Should someone decide to do that in the future, they now have zero access to the previous revisions of the article to do so. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One person of 6 participants casually mentioned that it was merely possible to expand the target. He wasn't volunteering. In fact, he flatly said "but I think it's sufficiently covered at List of The Flash characters" so the information was already WP:PRESERVED. He was still saying Simon Stagg should go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been - when I said that, I was only meaning a specific portion of the article - the section on the character's television appearance. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And much like your opening statement, saying they have zero access is hyperbole. I've never refused a userfy request, which I have yet to receive on this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies if you thought I was saying that you, or any other admin, or REFUND, wouldn't provide access to the deleted content on request. But until that happens, yes, non-admins have zero access to the content. I can't see it, you can, and that is why WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R are so important, because by your closure as delete you have removed all that content from user-accessible sight, and I daresay most admins are too busy to work on random fictional elements topics like this one. As a curationist, I certainly don't have time to go around requesting access to random deleted fictional elements just to see if there's anything worth merging, and that's why DRV'ing this likely-not-very-important content is important for the overall health of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do not see a clear consensus to delete here, and that is what is needed for deletion to happen. Also, there appears to ahve been a serious lack of WP:BEFORE searching on the nominator's part. When he wrote "As for Google, that also doesn't mean a thing he was correct that numbers of google hits don't make a topic notable, but overlooked that google is a good place to find sources, and if the sources exist, even if not yet in the article, deletion is improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Redirect - As Dennis said, the policy-based !votes clearly do not favor keeping the article. I read consensus as redirect, though. Although some said merge, the proposed merge target is nothing but a list of names that already includes the subject in question. So it's already "merged" to the extent it can be with that list's format, and the merges should just be considered redirects. As long as the name is listed there, a redirect seems meh, even if there's no other information. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect while the Keep comments were not based on policy and were properly discounted, I don't agree with discounting the redirect/merge comments. While the target article is currently just a list of names that does not mean that we can't expand it to include other information, and redirection leaves open the possibility of merging relevant material if desired. The redirect as it stands would still give useful information about the subject (he's a DC character). Redirection is also more in keeping with the rough consensus of the discussion, as nobody except the nominator supported deletion and the nominator didn't express any sort of opposition to redirection or merging. Hut 8.5 10:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no argument for deletion or wrong forum The AfD nomination hasn't made an argument for deletion, since GNG is only a sub-standard of a guideline to decide if a topic is to be standalone or covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. There is no dispute that this topic remains on Wikipedia after the deletion, nor were there WP:DEL-REASONs in the closing that justified the removal of the work product in the edit history. The remaining issues are content issues, which as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT such discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, or if necessary at RfC. Note that the AfD nomination stipulates that single-sentence reliable content is available. Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in practice, we do decide some difficult or disputed questions involving possible merge or redirect at AfD, since they are some of the possible results. This has gradually developed in response to the earlier practice of destroying articles by merges, followed by gradual destruction of content, and hoping not to be noticed. AfD is actually the only visible content process we have except for RfCs. and the only one with a chance of involving the general community. Erratoc as AfD may be, it's fairer than most of the alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the edit history is preserved, there is never a loss of content. This is why our policy establishes a bright line between discussions that can end up with the use of administrator tools, and those decisions that can be closed by non-admins. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Policies including WP:Deletion policy are widely accepted standards that all editors should normally follow. I have often recorded in your deletion nominations that your nomination failed to follow WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When AfD ends up with a merge or redirect result (meaning redirect without deletion of the edit history), these are not deletion results, and as content results coming from an AfD, the result is not binding. We see that individual closers may choose to take on a subsequent content dispute as a personal choice. We also have closers who won't touch a subsequent "overturn" of a unanimous AfD by a single editor, because administrators have other things to do than get bound into a content dispute just because they closed an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the idea that participants at AfD, which you call the "general community", are superior editors for content decisions across the encyclopedia; I think it would be more accurate to say that participants at AfD are specialists in the use of admin tools for deletion. The idea that a non-binding result from AfD is "fairer" than alternatives should lead to asking why non-policy use of AfD continues without addressing the foundational issues. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current discussion is an example of what can happen when non-deletion discussions are allowed to proceed at a forum that allows the use of administrator tools. IMO, the best way to have handled this nomination was to speedy close it WP:NPASR before anyone had posted. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The contributions made in the discussion were not helpful, and the closing admin didn't have that much to work with. I agree that the two "Keep" opinions were not grounded in policy and were rightly disregarded, but that still leaves a bunch of calls for a Merge. While the identified target isn't a great article with much content in it, the information can and should be retained somehow for integration. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn honestly I'd probably have supported a NC reading or a merge (probably redirect in reality). But there is no delete outcome possible from that discussion IMO. Hobit (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No reasonable administrator could have concluded that this discussion's consensus was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closing admin does not get a supervote that ignores and overrides discussion participants. —Lowellian (reply) 20:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Closing rationale reads like a super-!vote. I cannot read a clear consensus whether to just redirect or also merge, but there clearly was no consensus to delete this without so much as a redirect. Also, saying "delete is the only option" implies that the closer thinks a lack of consensus to keep results in delete when it's the other way around. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a defensible close; the reasons given for it were editorial, not administrative. (For what it's worth, I agree with them.) Had you written them as a comment in the discussion and the next admin to come along had closed as delete, that would still have been sketchy but might have stood. Overturn to a redirect w/history; feel free to bring that to RFD. —Cryptic 12:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've requested the article history be restored for new participants. Valoemtalkcontrib 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Priyanka Agrawal – Speedy close per WP:DRVPURPOSE. @Shyamkrishnan2k:, we appreciate all contributions to the encyclopedia, but please read WP:BIO to learn about what we require for biographical articles. Also, it appears from your comment to King of Hearts that you have some relationship to the subject. You should also read WP:COI to learn about our conflict of interest policies. Thanks for being helping to write the encyclopedia, but I would suggest that you find other topics to write about – -- RoySmith(talk) 15:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The actress is not a one film wonder as described, she has 1 movie, 1 short, 2 commercials and multiple music videos to her credit. There is ample news generated and I can tab articles, she is also signing new movies so think this should be undeleted. Shyamkrishnan2k (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Consensus was a unanimous delete, so there's nothing to be faulted about the close. Has anything changed since January that would make this person notable now when she wasn't then? ReykYO! 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Covfefe – The rough consensus is that it was within the closer's discretion to interpret the discussion as he did, partly because the discussion was overwhelmed with WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Cyberpower should've explained his closure in further detail, which he had done by expanding the closing statement as soon as this DRV was started. Later comments in this DRV pointed out that, with a "Covfefe Act" in the legislative pipeline, Covfefe is still very much a current event, so this DRV is closed as endorse with caveat that the original closure was upheld but future re-expansion into standalone article is not forbidden. – Deryck C. 12:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There were far more votes for Keep than Merge. Consensus was wildly misinterpreted. Mishigas (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
Also, "covfefe" garners more than 22 million hits on google, conferring notability.Mishigas (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
I count over 100 votes for keep/covfefe. Admin did not even provide a rationale for closing. I think this was a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The topic has obvious notability, and many commentators in the discussion believed the result was "piling on for keep." Please read the discussion, and you will see a groundswell of support for this remarkable article. Mishigas (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC) --rationale struck out by user:SkyWarrior on 19:16, 10 June 2017 because of WP:SOCK -- this commented added by 96.41.32.39 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comments: I'll admit it was silly of me to forget to include a rationale for such a heating open debate, so I will add it here. Before I do, I will point out that the starter of this DELREV discussion is a blocked user for childish behavior on Trump related articles, seemingly, and was likely started because he didn't like my close. In any event I am impartial as to whether or not this should be an article or not. In any event I gauged all of the !votes. The deletes made solid arguments, but so did the keeps. It became apparent to me as I was following this discussion that this incident is clearly notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It was also apparent that many users feel it not notable enough to have it's own article for it. So as a middle ground to the keep and delete, I was leaning towards merging the article into a different Trump related article. Many users based on their !votes saw the same course of action as the only acceptable. I will also add that many keepers and deleters offered merging as a second choice. When I gauged the discussion before I closed, I was certain that Wikipedia needs to mention Covfefe somewhere, but not as its own article, based on arguments, so rather outright delete or keep, I felt the best course of action was to merge into a different article, considering there was an ongoing merge discussion happening simultaneously which seems to have been headed towards a merge result. Even if I closed this as no consensus, the merge discussion would have likely closed as merge IMO. I have no objections to my actions being overturned. I outright expected to get a lot of covfefe over the close. Hope this helps.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the user who put this article up for deletion review is or is not banned is not relevant, and to bring that up makes for an Ad Hominem fallacy. Thank you for finally providing a closing argument. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. I think there was a solid enough consensus to keep. ReykYO! 07:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (which should default to keep). There were valid arguments on all sides. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)keep now that there is the proposed COVFEFE Act which has received coverage in WP:RS. This is a new development, and does not reflect on the judgement of the closing admin. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On his talk page, in response to my question asking for his rationale, the closing administrator stated There was pretty much even divide between the keepers and deleters. Both sides made good arguments for either. Then there were those that suggested merging. Some keepers and deleters also suggested merging as a second option. He then went on to say why he thought that merge was the best option. To me, that sounds like he went too far and should have closed the discussion as no consensus. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Per WP:NOTVOTE, !votes are not votes. Many of the keep !votes are poorly grounded, either being clear "votes" only, misrepresentation of policy or clearly ideologically motivated. (See: Keep important, groundbreaking article. Will be useful to historians that want to trace the emergence of the second dark ages and Trump's reign of terror. Crucial historical document. This is not the place to pay partisan politics and cover up for Daddy, Trumpkins.; Keep this is about as consequential as this presidency has been thus far.; Keep Article possesses world-historical importance. Symbolic of the astonishingly rapid decline in moral and intellectual standards and the decay of human civilization itself since Trump's violent seizure of power.) While many of the !votes assert notability, none demonstrate it. Considering the arguments provided in the discussion, merge is not an unreasonable closure. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 07:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. There are keep votes over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe that did establish notability as per WP:GNG. Indeed, one opponent of keeping the article conceded that NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue.. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I do not see anywhere in WP:N additional criteria that go above and beyond WP:GNG. The way I am reading the policy, if WP:GNG is achieved, WP:N is achieved. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rather it is I who am sorry; I am not responsible for the comprehension skills of others. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 03:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "Keep: Make Wikipedia great again" and other WP:ILIKEIT rationales were typical of the "keep" !votes; very few had any policy-based arguments. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus (and therefore keep). Very many of the Keep votes were WP:ILIKEIT, but equally very many of the Delete votes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many of the Delete voters were appalled that a respectable online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should give coverage to ephemeral trivia such as a Trump's mistweet; but many mainstream newspaper articles have been devoted to "Covfefe", which makes it notable, and it's just snobbishness on our part to pretend that it is not a notable topic worthy of a separate article here on the English Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There was substantial disagreement on the deletion discussion and nothing to definitively override the WP:GNG presumption of notability given by its massive media coverage. People have correctly noted that Trump and related memes get media attention of a quality and quantity different from other presidents, but this isn't something Wikipedia should subjectively compensate for. Attempting to do so reeks of original research. —Guanaco 08:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:Ryk72. Closing admin quite correctly looked at strength of argument rather than an up and down head count. One suggestion that I would have for them though is to provide a bit more of a rationale when closing tricky discussions like this one, rather than just using the default minimal text. It won't stop some people dragging the discussion through every possible drama board, but it at least shows that there was a thought process applied in deciding what to do. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse: A deletion discussion is not a vote. The closing admin, cyberpower678, I am sure has taken the relative weight of arguments presented to arrive at the close to merge the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTVOTE. The closing admin correctly found that a merge was the best alternative per normal Wikipedia policy. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 10:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Between the delete and merge !votes the arguments against keeping the article were much stronger. For the record, I favored (and still do) deletion. But I concede that the merge close was reasonable given the general split (delete v merge) among those who presented very solid arguments against retention as a stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly were these "very solid arguments"? I see nothing more than Wp:IDONTLIKEIT, ad nauseam, despite the 22 million hits.
Striking my endorsement. See my comment somewhere (way) down below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closing admin's "explanation" lacks basic logical coherence:" It became apparent to me as I was following this discussion that this incident is clearly notable." So you decided to delete? By your own lights the arguments for notability convinced you. People citing not a vote doesnt imply that the side with far fewer votes should win despite also having worse arguments. One of the most farcical excercises in democracy since Trump was "elected" with 3 million fewer votes than Clinton. Your fascism has no place here.2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)— 2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Endorse close per Ryk72's rationale. —DoRD (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable compromise close. It is apparent that there is in fact no consensus on the application of WP:NOTNEWS. A "merge" allows the closer not to come down on one side, which, given the roughly even split in the vote, is fine by me. I'm sure this will be hashed out again in other deletion discussions. Srnec (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Most users supporting keeping the article were politically motivated and didn't make strong arguments. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. The discussion was closed with a single sentence, and did not quote any relevant Wikipedia policy. Even people who supported closing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe conceded that the article met WP:GNG, e.g. NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue.. A lot of people opposed to keeping the article brought up WP:NOTNEWS, but that was wrong, as pointed out by another user: there is a pretty sizable WP:NOTNEWS 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 [...] "WP:Notnews" is a misnomer and should be retitled "NotRoutineNews". To address WP:LASTING, new articles are still using the word “Covfefe”, e.g. This USA Today article from today has “Covfefe” in its title. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mishigas, the initiator of this discussion, has been confirmed a sockpuppet of Kingshowman. SkyWarrior 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think the merge into the Trump social networking article reflects a reasonable level of treatment for the long haul, even though I believe this tweet will ultimately prove to be a forgettable social media flap. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Ryk72's. If we only counted votes, we could have a bot close discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As somebody who participated in the original AfD I am perfectly happy that the decision to merge reflects the outcome of the discussion and that the grounds on which this review was originally requested are merely the bogus ramblings of a blocked user. What stops me suggesting a speedy close to this review is that other people have suggested overturning the deletion, some of them presenting more respectable arguments than those at the top. My view remains that we should cover this in a manner that is not undue. Anybody who types "covfefe" into the search box should be taken to coverage of this kerfuffle (rather than redirected to coverage or anything else that might be confusing and unhelpful to them) but that there is no encyclopaedic subject here, distinct from Trump's use of social media in general, which can justify an article of its own. I believe that this is in line with policy and is the outcome that serves our readers the best, neither hiding the kerfuffle from them nor pretending that it is more than it is. Lets stop before somebody dubs this "covfefegate" and the English language dies of shame. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-open It would seem a strong consensus failed to be reached. I'd rule in favor of re-opening this discussion through another AFD nomination (and to avoid any abrupt closures to its discussion, as seems to have been the problem in with this one). I myself ultimately lean in favor of a merge, however I feel the means by which the discussion was concluded were improper. SecretName101 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If AfD was articles for discussion (it isn't, see WP:PEREN) it would be a slam-dunk to endorse the close: no matter how stupid or transitory the coverage, there has been a plethora of it. Merging was probably the most Solomonic thing to do in this situation, but per GNG, Keep is a policy-based outcome, and per WP:DEL "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate." So, with all due respect for the closer stepping into a political morass like everything Trump-related is, Overturn to Keep and start a merge discussion outside the AfD process. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging was probably the most Solomonic thing to do in this situation, but per GNG, Keep is a policy-based outcome -- ??? I'm having trouble understanding what you're arguing, but it seems like you're saying merge is not a valid outcome at AfD, or not "policy-based"? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There was no way the AfD was ever going to end in deletion, and any editor in good standing should have gone in knowing that in the first place: Inconsequential and silly as the original tweet may have been, the only alternatives were separate article or merge into another, and therefore AfD was never a proper venue in the first place. Of the two outcomes (keep, merge) I really don't have a strong opinion, but the policy-based outcome would have been to keep the article and start a merge decision on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair there was a merge discussion taking place at the same time. I only briefly glanced at it, but it seemed to be heading towards a merge outcome.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I had missed that. Striking my !vote on that basis. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Many of the keep votes were clearly a case of WP:ILIKEIT, and while many of the delete ones could be considered WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I don't see why this deserves its own article and couldn't just be a larger section on the Donald Trump on social media page. --Snowstormer(T | C) 21:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:DanielRigal and User:Lankiveil. The only error was the failure to provide a rationale in the original close, and that has now been resolved. There's even an argument to speedy close this per WP:DENY given the source of this DRV. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for what it's worth (and acknowledging that I declined the block appeal of the account that created this DRV, before knowing they were a sock), I don't think there's any harm in letting this discussion run its course naturally. Once all the forms have been observed, hopefully those who don't agree with whatever the outcome was can at least accept the decision that is made without grousing about the procedures being subverted. Lankiveil(speak to me) 07:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Do not try to speedy close. The status of the original nominator for this reveiw is irrelevant. This is not a snow close, it is clear there there is a significant and legitimate dispute here. Any attempt to speedy clsoe because the nominator is alleged to be a sock would be promptly and properly reverted. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 10:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. By and large, the delete/merge arguments were of WP:IDONTLIKEIT nature, or else the policy arguments they raised were convincingly rebutted during the AfD. Quite a few 'delete' !voters said that this was a WP:NOTNEWS case. However, as was pointed out more than once during the AfD, the covfefe episode are anything but routine. Others arguing for delete/merge said that the coverage will disappear in a few days or has disappeared already. I pointed out twice (on June 5 [1] and on June 7 [2], in response to these arguments, that substantial coverage was continuing. In fact, while this DRV is ongoing, there are numerous new examples of substantial coverage, just from the last 24 hours Sarah Huckabee Sanders' 3-year-old just tweeted a bunch of covfefe, More 'Covfefe'?: Trump Spox Lights Up Internet with Strange Emoji'ed Tweet, 'Tonight Show' Thank You Notes: James Comey, Covfefe, Covfefe 2.0? Sarah Huckabee Sanders' emoji tweet grips the internet, and many more. There were many passionate IDONTLIKEIT delete arguments saying that it was just a stupid typo unworthy of an encyclopedia article. But we are supposed to base our decisions about keeping/deleting/merging an article based on whether there is substantial sustained coverage by independent reliable sources. That's definitely the case here, and it is clear that the covfefe thing is not going to go away. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's a WP:TROUT due for not putting the closing admin comments on the AfD page, but the consensus was judged correctly. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe despite the constant negative press, I notice that there has been some stuff that didn't get noted earlier, like the Trevor Noahparody film trailer, and the jacksfilmshalf-hour analysis. It seems to be one of those things that every comic wanted to get in on. Compy book (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as merge. For now, it is just too new. We do not know if the coverage will continue. While it is extremely likely, as Trump has basically invented a new word, we can't see the future per WP:CRYSTAL. With a merge, the history of the page will be kept, and once long-term notability has been established, the article can be branched out again. Gatemansgc (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The one thing that was clear in the AfD was that there was no consensus to do anything. If you tally the raw opinions as if they were votes, there was obviously no consensus at all. If you attempt to extract the policy-based arguments, the main arguments for delete were 1) WP:NOTNEWS and 2) "Just not encyclopedic", or 3) "clearly not notable". 1) Notnews falls to the ground, none of its points are met. its second point comes closest, but this is not just "routine" coverage by any reasonable standard. Look at the number, solidity, and variety of sources to be found, and already found. "Enduring coverage" can't really be judged this soon, but it has already endured longer than the deleters predicted when the AfD was opened. "Not encyclopedic" is no more than IDON'TLIKEIT when no particular reasons for it are given in turn. As for notability, they only objective way we have to judge that is coverage. No one can honestly deny that this has more coverage than most notable topics ever do. On the Keep side, the strongest argument is "Meets the GNG" which it obviously does. However, the GNG itself says that not everything that meets it is suitable for an article, and there was no consensus on whether this should be one of the exceptions. Most of the other keep arguments are no more than ILIKEIT, or refutations of the delete arguments. There was certainly not a consensus for Merge or redirect, although each had significant support. "No consensus" was really the only accurate close, in my view. A mild WP:TROUT to the closer for not including the reason in the close -- on one like this, that just isn't optional. And the AfD should be edited to insert the close reason now given here, for the record. But since it has been given here, that doesn't really change things much. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, couple things. While I don't agree with the close, its not madness or idiocy, because, while it wasn't brought up either at the close or the closer's remarks here, there is WP:NOTNEWS, a policy. It says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...breaking news should not be emphasized". But it also says "[N]ews coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate". And then it specifies "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" are what we want to avoid (which doesn't apply here.) If you squint pretty hard, I guess you can apply WP:NOTNEWS. But if you squint that hard, we certainly can't have articles like 2017 Manchester Arena bombing either -- let's wait on that also, there's no hurry. So I would like to ask the closer to nominate that article for deletion also, as a mark of good faith and to show his consistent application of policy. And if he won't, I'd like to know why not, and would tend to possibly consider an overturn as maybe appropriate.
The other thing is, it looks like the article merged to (Donald Trump on social media) is going to get large. If this article is merged into that, then probably Trump orb will be too, and there is much else to add to that article... already (a few months into the administration). So eventually we are going to have to break out articles from that, to keep the article size reasonable. So then this article will have to be recreated anyway. So it seems like wasted effort to go through all that, but whatever. Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reasonable reading of an AfD that was as much of a trainwreck as Trump's tweet (and presidency). Ribbet32 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no way that every person would be happy with the result. On the one hand AfD is a notvote, that means 100 keeps and 1 delete does not necessarily mean we keep the article. That said, numerically speaking a Keep result is not a viable result by any reading of the AfD. As is no-consensus, there is a strong consensus not to keep the article. Let me demonstrate why it would fly directly in the face of around 100 reasoned delete votes and just as many reasoned redirect and merge votes. Redirection and delete are tantamount to merge in this case. There is almost no difference between these options. A complete deletion of the article would do nothing to remove the merged material from the other article, but, would prevent the redirect that currently occupies the article's space. A redirection does nothing to prevent the merge of material, but, does prevent an absolute deletion. A merge does nothing to prevent redirection or deletion of the article. By contrast a keep or no consensus (therefore keep) of the article opposes every non-keep !votes which is argumentationally (in a 1 to 1 scenario, it's actually about 1.8 to 1 against keep) equal if not better (I think better, but then, I'm biased in favour of the current close) than the requested overturn to keep. I say this because you may immediately discount every "Covfefe" vote as non-serious and also stupid comments like; Keep: Make Wikipedia great again[3]. I'll also remind (some of the) other commentors here that the "GNG" presumption is not itself necessarily (amended; 00:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)) a valid reason not to delete. That only works if there is no resonable argument to delete. Presumed notability is negated by demonstrated non-notability. GNG in an argument is like this; Person A; It meets GNG so I presume it's notable. Person B; I disagree, it's a passing issue that will attract little or no attention in a week's time. Furthermore it's a pure news item with little to no encyclopaedic value. So the president made a typo or didn't finish his thought, are we going to create articles every time he does that. If so we're just going to be littering the encyclopaedia with valueless content because the President literally makes typos every day of the week. It's classic NOTNEWS routine reporting with no consequence beyond millions of people have a laugh. It has no lasting effects and it isn't affecting anything in any way at all. Person A; Yes, but, I assume it's notable. Can you see the quality of the GNG argument? no? it's because it's not a strong argument. I'll just add here that a rough Ctrl+F suggests to me that about a quarter to half of the keep votes hang onto GNG to demonstrate notability. Another quarter depend on versions of GEOSCOPE and DIVERSE to push the notability argument as well; To quote GEOSCOPE and my Merge !vote at the AfD 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. Please take note of the many; has sources therefore notable, has many sources therefore notable, has covfefe sources therefore notable, has strong covfefe in sources and even covfefe covfefe sources therefore notable, and sources indicate notability !votes, of which there are at least a dozen more like them, that do not clear the NOTNEWS and GEOSCOPE guidelines at all. I simply do not agree that the Keep argument is as strong as the Delete, Merge and Redirect arguments. I will admit, however, that there are questionable !votes in the non-Keep circle such as complaints about "Please God Delete", "for the sake of [our] reputation", "kill it, kill it with fire" and the such. They just look to me to be much rarer. I skimmed through at least thirty delete !votes, only a few were like this and they were more common in the early stage of the discussion (May 31, May 31 and June 2 in the case of the above examples) as compared to the later discussion. If there is an overturn, it should be to Delete outright, not, to No Consensus. There is a consensus, it's that the article isn't notable. Now, you can either delete it because it's not notable or merge or redirect it to an article that is more notable, but, to keep it is right now a very poor decision. If this comes up again in six months, then maybe it will demonstrate lasting notability, but, right now, there is little to speak of beyond the President made a typo, everybody lost their shit over it, and the world is moving on. I would have even kept the article (that was my preference in my !vote), it was funny at the time that I found out about Covfefe, but, it's only been four days since then (I found out the day that I !voted) and I've already moved on. I'm going to say it again, I fully endorse the close. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above vidw badly misunderstands the [[[WP:GNG]]. Mr rnddude writes Presumed notability is negated by demonstrated non-notability.. But passing the GNG does not confer presumed notability, it is the objective test, in effect the very definiation of notability. What is says is that passing the GNG, (and therefore being notable), means that the topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. It goes on to say that "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not.... But no such argument has been made, except for the invocation of WP:NOTNEWS. Your also say "GNG" presumption is not itself a valid reason not to delete.. This is exactly backwards. Passing the GNG is an excellent reason not to delete, but it can, in some cases, be overridden by other reasons. I don't see any such reasons here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel. You're right, actually, that GNG presumes to be suitable for a "stand-alone article" not notability. That would be my mistake and I had never realized it. Thank you for pulling me up on that. That said, I disagree with your assessment that the only argument against GNG was "NOTNEWS". My own comment covered; WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING/WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Second, Presumed notability is negated by demonstrated non-notability. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but, if you can demonstrate something meets GNG but isn't notable then yes, GNG fails to demonstrate notability on that occassion. This really just leaves me with one thing. Your also say "GNG" presumption is not itself a valid reason not to delete.. This is exactly backwards. Passing the GNG is an excellent reason not to delete, but it can, in some cases, be overridden by other reasons. Mmm ... no not necessarily. If it's overriden by other reasons then, by your own admission, it's no longer a valid reason not to delete. I should have said, "is not necessarily" a valid reason in itself not to delete. That's the one thing I'll fix in the above comment because I had intended to say it. GNG can sometimes, even often, be enough for an AfD discussion. I'll put my point a different way that might convey what I wanted to say with that. Giving a "meets GNG" !vote and saying, well it meets GNG therefore don't delete, isn't a convincing argument in itself for keeping it, but, only for saying it's presumably suitable for inclusion (or to me previously; presumably notable). Even saying here's why it meets GNG doesn't do anything to demonstrate that it should be included on the encyclopaedia (or to me previously; notable enough for the encyclopaedia). I've been calling it "presumed notability", that's wrong, I should be saying "presumed suitability for the encyclopaedia". However, when I say that GNG isn't valid here I mean that it's presumed suitability doesn't actually demonstrate why we should keep it. Like you said, other guidelines/policies can override GNG. In the case of this article, we all know it meets GNG, and there's a variety of reasons (that different people put up) that said things like; I know it meets GNG, but, it's not suitable for the encyclopaedia because WP:X therefore delete/merge/redirect. To respond to, for example, NOTNEWS with GNG is pointless. It becomes a circular argument. Refer to my example back and forth above. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{U|Mr rnddude}}, I think we are closer, but there is a significant gap. You wrote: here's why it meets GNG doesn't do anything to demonstrate that it should be included on the encyclopaedia. I would put it differently. Meeting the GNG does do something to demonstrate that an articel should be included, but it doesn't always do everything. Or to put it better, Once it is clear that the GNG has been satisfied, the article should be included unless there is some specific reason why it shouldn't be. Or to put it yet another way, ocne the GNG is satisfied, the burden of proof that the article doesn't belong now falls on those arguing for deletion. Until it is, the burden is on those arguing for inclusion. S for the specific argument, you mentioned WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING/WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:GEOSCOPE. How does any of these really differ, in substance, from notnews here? 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 This meme has surely been covered by a very wide variety of sources from all over the world. The impact was clearly widespread, and the coverage was not routine (which WP:EVENT mentions lower down). Whether the impact will be truly lasting we don't know, but we don't need to, as point 2 of EVENT's options does not require or even mention lasting impact. Scope and depth of coverage have clearly been attained. LASTING is merely a paragraph of EVENT, od if EVENT is satisfied, it is irrelevant. So is GEOSCOPE, and in any case it is so clearly satisfied, it represents an argument to keep. As for CRYSTAL, it does not apply. We don't need a crystal ball to demonstrate wide coverage. CRYSTAL is for things like unrealsed films, adn projects that are planned but not completed, perhaps not even started, where we don't even know that the event will take place, or if it does, that it will ever pass the GNG. Here the event has already occurred, and has been massively covered. In short, i still don't see policy-based reason to delete beyond NOTNEWS. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, I don't think you've read my comment at AfD. I think this specifically because of your crystalball comment. GEOSCOPE is not a reason to keep alone. I used it only to dismantle the "has sources, keep" arguments of which there were dozens. I know GEOSCOPE has been attained, I said as much at the AfD. The coverage is possibly no longer routine. As I noted today when I did a google search on Covfefe and found that "Sarah Huckabee has Covfefe moment" the quality of coverage for this has been FOX news level and below, but, then there's also Comey Covfefe which is getting covered as far away as by the Guardian. At this rate, but, still months from now it may actually meet Lasting. I might revisit it in six months. There's a ten year test thing written somewhere, but, I can't remember which policy or guideline it's in. I use a far smaller six months test and in six months I do not see this being of any consequence any more than I did five days ago at AfD. By the end of the month, I don't think this will be news anymore. I said as much at AfD and pointed out I was crystalballing it based on personal experience. Quite a different use of CB than you suggested above. You're also wrong when you say; LASTING is merely a paragraph of EVENT, od if EVENT is satisfied, it is irrelevant per point 1 of EVENTS; Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. In order for Events to be met, so too does lasting. It's written once explicitly and once implicitly. Enduring historical significanceis a lasting effect. Really, to meet point 1 of events it needs to either be LASTING and GNG or LASTING and LASTING. It's not, nor do I think it will be, a lasting event with lasting effects. For that matter, you skipped point 4 of events; Routine kinds of news events ... political news, "shock" news ... are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. This is both political news and "shock" news and the enduring significance of it is, literally, memes, a licence plate and drinks at some bars. Now, if we had a WP:MEMES guideline that hadn't failed I'd look to it, but, we don't so ... moving on. It's a tight line between routine and extraordinary coverage. If this weren't the President of the U.S. I'd call it extraordinary, but, it is and if he so much as farts at the wrong moment it will be global news for at least a week. In that sense, this is routine coverage of the POTUS for me. I presented both arguments to keep and delete the article at AfD, by the end of it I had been swayed to merge the article into a more relevant one as I didn't think Covfefe was suitable for the encyclopaedia. That stance hasn't changed, though you've educated me on parts of the GNG policy so thanks. I never though of GNG as a should include, just a could include. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Oh and you missed a curly bracket with the ping. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wasn't the term supposed to be "Keep" if we didn't want a page to be deleted? Either way, I want this page to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote of Endorse is saying you agree with the closing admin's actions, which in this case means to merge the contents of the page with Donald Trump on social media. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to local merge/split discussions. Thinking about this, the main thing that is wrong is that AfD is supposed to decide the big things -- is admin intervention needed to hide the history of an article or to enforce some restriction on how it is handled? AfD was originally Keep or Delete; the "Merge" outcome only emphasizes that material can be kept somewhere else. I can accept allowing the AfD vote, suitably interpreted, to reset the "default condition" for what happens if a merge or split discussion doesn't come to a consensus. However, when push comes to shove, decisions to merge or split depend on how much material editors can dig up, which tends to increase over time. Trying to condense a merged section (and we did lose some fun stuff in this merge, like the fake RC tweet that was noted in the press, and which sheds important historical background by showing that Twitter was free enough to allow a fake comment, but not free enough to keep it long), trying to keep a merged article from overly distracting from the big picture of a broader-topic article, these are troublesome. This is why such decisions should be left to merge discussions or the contested merge procedure, attended, one hopes, by people who have actually put their hands on the text and tried to work with it. The scandal of this vote, the reason for the deletion review, is that when you put something on AfD you get a lot of low-effort votes from people on both sides who aren't really interested in editing. Once you reduce the stakes and make it a merge discussion on a local talk page, the crowd kind of thins out. And it's important to remember that while the low-effort votes may say "merge this because it's really unimportant!", the article editors may well say "split this because this unimportant crap is taking up too much of our article!" For this reason, I'm content to weakly endorse the current close, provided that people are willing to accept that a consensus of the people on Talk:Donald Trump on social media should be sufficient to split this back off again if that's what they want, whether that's in a day or a year. There should be no AFD and no DRV required to decide to split an article later on! We have an entirely different set of procedures for contested merges, and one thing clear out of this close is that no material needed to be totally deleted out of public view. I would hope that if User:Cyberpower678 would agree that the AfD close does not prohibit future splits by local consensus, we might close this and leave it to those editors later on to sort out. Wnt (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as Keep not Merge. Among the hundred not-votes to Keep/Covfefe the page, it was explained the issue was wp:LASTING, and in fact on the day closed, major wp:RS sources noted "covfefe cocktails" were served in U.S. taverns, sports bars or nightclubs (for overnight tweeters) re Comey hearing (see: NBC News, 7 June 2017, "Bars Host Comey Hearing Watch Parties With ‘Covfefe’ Cocktails"). A similar pop-culture spinoff happened with "FEMA trailers" when jewelry was marketed with tiny silver, FEMA-trailer earing pendants, as proof of separate Notability with capital "N". Meanwhile, a not-vote Keep explained how merge would put much wp:UNDUE weight text into Trump-social-media page, as with writing "covfefe coffee" of whipped cream and cinnamon. So the logical consensus should have closed as: "Keep" the separate page to hold weighty long-term, pop-culture topic. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - I think it's fair to say that there wasn't a clear consensus one way or the other, in terms of this. Yes, there were jokes between the keep and delete !votes, but my initial impression was that the AfD itself was deadlocked. Mistbreeze (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTAVOTE. A non-involved administrator made a good faith close based on their reading of consensus which is not a simple majority headcount. No abuse or incompetence is present, it's a fair close. That's all that matters at DRV.--v/r - TP 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues here (as with most DRVs). #1 Where was the discussion going and #2 was that outcome reasonable given our policies? From a headcount viewpoint, merge or NC were both reasonable. From a policy viewpoint, I've gone back and forth a lot. Our policies are poor here. Does there exist an amount of coverage that something this silly should have an article on Wikipedia? For a BLP1E, the answer is "yes". Enough sustained coverage gets us there. IMO we have enough coverage that we'd keep a BLP at this point. I'm counting 45 articles in Google News that use the word in the last 24 hours. That includes coverage in French, Arabic and a few Asian languages. That said, this isn't a BLP (though I'd think the standards for a BLP would be higher, not lower). So weak endorse as a reasonable reading of policy and the discussion, though I think NC would have been a better close. Hobit (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Fair close following policy. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion discussions can come with the outcomes of delete or not-delete. Varying the outcome to a different variety of not-delete does not need to come here, but can be taken up at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The comments in a deletion discussion are not votes. The decision has to be made based on our policies and that was clearly the case here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the decision is made to keep the article deleted, I would recommend against salting as there is now an actual piece of federal legislation ([4]) being considered and if it is passed there will likely be an article about it so a redirect will probably be needed. (Also, some of the discussion about Covfefe could be transferred to the history section of that article if it's written). 136.159.160.5 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree - per WP:LASTING, this would qualify under lasting impact.Sebwite (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, which defaults to keeping the article pending further discussion: I was neutral and did not participate in the original AFD, but looking over it, it is clear that the AFD closure was improper, with the closing admin using his closure to make a unilateral merge decision without any consensus to do so. Furthermore, new events such as the proposed COVFEFE Act have expanded the impact of and further increased the notability of the subject, changing the context of any deletion discussion so that if the article were to be deleted or merged, a new AFD discussion would be necessary. —Lowellian (reply) 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Numerous rationales were given for keeping the article. I read them up until the day of the closing. Yes, there were plenty of people who felt this should be deleted. There really was no consensus, and this should have been relisted if not kept. There are numerous guidelines on Wikipedia that allow for inclusion of a subject one way or another, and this seems to fit many of them that were all mentioned in the seemingly endless comments. Sebwite (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Well within the closer's discretion. --BDD (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTAVOTE. The Keep numbers may have been swelled with baseless "ILIKEITS" from single-purpose accounts apparently solicited on the internet. "Merge" was the appropriate close, to preserve info about the odd incident in an article about the person's media use. This is more encyclopedic than having a separate article about each such twitterstorm. Edison (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The delete numbers were conversely swelled with baseless IDONTLIKEITS. There was no consensus, and it should have been closed as such, not as merge. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. While I did not participate in the original AfD discussion, I followed it closely, and based on my observations I cannot conclude that anything resembling a consensus was truly reached. ~longestaugust (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore page. (Personal attack removed) and it seemed to be no consensus at the time. However, let me also point out the "Covfefe Act" and just neverending usage of this word to confirm it is now in our lexicon, for better or worse. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fucking serious? Cyberpower doesn't touch political articles at all and couldn't give a flying fuck. Get out of here with your personal attack against him or substantiate it before I drag your ass to WP:AE. Cyberpower is the admin least likely to have political motivations and one of the most fair admins we have. I won't stand for this baseless attack against him.--v/r - TP 12:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TParis, I've been trying to work out how to respond to that myself. Wikimandia, you seriously undermine your argument when you chuck in stupid shit like aspersions about editor motivations. Don't bother trying to substantiate it, a cursory glance at Cyberpower's comment (the first one on this page) would tell you in no uncertain terms that you done fucked up. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It just makes me so upset. Throw political movation comments at me all day long, I wear my politics on my sleeve. But Cyberpower is the last person who deserve that. And I know he won't stand up for himself. He'd come by and apologize for giving off that impression. Which he shouldn't have to, because he didn't.--v/r - TP 12:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boohoo. This was a poor close as you can see from the many comments here. His/her insult on the editor who created this DR was unnecessary. If that person hadn't created the DR, someone else would have. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'm not politically motivated here, I'm sorry if I seem that way. I have no opinion as to whether this should be an article or not. Considering the new Covfefe Act, a merge seems less appropriate now, but I'm not going to make the call on that. When I closed it, there was an ongoing merge discussion heading towards a merge close. Even had I closed as no consensus, this discussion would have resulted in the same end result, a merge, at the time.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to just drop it (and will do so here), but, Wikimandia, when someone tells you to go read something, they mean read the whole thing. Since you're obviously not exerting the effort to do so, I'm going to unilaterally strike your personal attack until such time as you are able to substantiate the claim. Cyberpower, you shouldn't apologize. There are more than fifty people here that have commented and not one of them has suggested that you have been politically motivated. There's a reason for this trend. It is a completely vacuous reading of your participation. My apologies for the sharpness of my comments, but, like TP, my gears are grinding hard. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse - the close reflected the clueful !votes. There were many useless !votes on both sides, but I didn't see much valid argument as to why this typo is of enduring interest to the extent it deserves a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is of enduring interest when it meets GNG; it doesn't matter if it's a typo... talk about a useless argument. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I initially !voted delete, but was persuaded by the discussion that merge is the best choice. The closer weighed the arguments correctly. Jonathunder (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose procedural/IAR close as I believe this discussion is now moot. With legislation using this term as its title now introduced in Congress, I now believe there is sufficient coverage and reason to justify the (re)creation of a stand alone article on this subject. Further I believe that if the article were sent to AfD now, bearing in mind the developments in Congress, that it would almost certainly survive. So yeah, I suggest we shut this discussion down and restore the article based on the recent developments. If someone still thinks it shouldn't exist as a stand alone then it should be sent back to AfD for another discussion that can take into consideration the most recent news and additional RS coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still endorse the close for the AfD, but, I agree with AO here. The AfD and the close are no longer relevant. The close given the situation as was, was, in my opinion, a reasonable reading of the discussion. However, the close given the situation as is, is no longer reasonable. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I also agree that the close at the time was both reasonable and correct. But given recent developments this discussion really doesn't serve any purpose at this point. (FTR my position at the AfD was strong delete.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per TParis: it was a clueful reading of the AfD by an uninvolved admin that weighed the arguments and came out with a reasonable close. The introduction of a cleverly named bill in Congress that the linked article above even admits is unlikely to ever become law doesn't change that. Should it actually become law, that might change the circumstances, but at most the clever congressman could get a mention in the main article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Covfefe is not an encyclopaedic subject in itself. Nobody can even say what it is. Things called "covfefe" might achieve notability in the future but that is not the same thing and it has yet to happen. The act stands a (rather slim) chance of doing so and I will be personally disappointed if we don't see some cheap Chinese coffee grinders re-badged with the slogan "Don't fall asleep tweeting. Covfefe. Make coffee great again!" I also look forward to a slew of truly awful death metal bands with names like "Covfefe Defe" with earplugs at the ready. Will any such tat become notable? Sadly, probably not, but if it does then there is no ban on the (non)word "covfefe" in article titles. It just has to be a genuine, notable subject first. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because a bill with a funny name that has zero chance of becoming a law introduced by a back bencher to make a point within the same month as an event is not by any stretch of the imagination lasting. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's decompose this. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Trump created the word. A congressmember used it to name a proposed law (ignoring for a moment your "back bencer" namecalling, which is completely inappropriate) and several WP:RS reported on it (not every bill that is proposed gets coverage by WP:RS). The proposed bill came almost 2 weeks after the initial creation of the word by Trump (where the hell did the month cutoff requirement come from anyway?). This chain of events definitely meets Wikipedia's notability requirement, and the proposed bill could also meet notability requirements even if it does not become law (for example, if there are mass covfefe demonstrations in favor of the bill). Note that the Affordable Care Act has had an article four months before it became law. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, you should probably also look at the part of WP:N that requires it pass WP:NOT. NOTNEWS being applicable here. This is not AfD 2.0: the close was correct and none of the information that has come to light since provides a policy based reason for recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A classic misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS. Covfefe is not routine news reporting. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. I think people who think this would only be worthy an article for being an error by a POTUS or alike are misguided. This matters, is notable and of relevance mainly due to the societal phenomenon: by how it was picked up around the world, how it was memeified, etc etc. Furthermore the news coverage around the world was intense. Also no consensus should result in keep. --Fixuture (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Overturn None of the votes to delete cited any relevant policies. We have thousands of articles on popular cultural phenomena with less notability than this. Those voting delete appear to have little to no familiarity with the popular culture of the United States of America, and appear to be confusing the fact that this is not a notable political event per se, with the fact that it is not a notable popular cultural event. This is far more notable than the contestants of Apprentice Season 3. Indeed, it may be one of the most notable popular cultural phenomena of its time. I am concerned that many Wikipedia contributors appear to be living under a rock. I also object to the closing administrator's Super-vote, which essentially negated the entire discussion, and refuted the canard that Wikipedia is based on Consensus, rather than the whims of the privileged administrator class, when there was clearly no consensus for merger on any reasonable interpretation of the discussion. Merger should be handled with the relevant article talk page anyway, not an AfD. The closing admin has even now admitted that his close was an error. Those who favor overturn have failed to provide any justification for their opinion besides their love for Trump, an pious wish to shield him from criticism, even of his spelling. That has no place here. 192.76.177.124 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a snow situation at all (either way), but what you said did get me to checking... Category:Internet memes has 714 pages, plus 14 subcategories... over 1,000 articles in all. One of those 14 subcategories, Category:Political Internet memes, has 28 non-redirect pages... not sure why we would single this out to be not one of those 1,000 (or 28) pages... but I guess that's more an argument for the AfD then here, was made there maybe and discounted, so... Herostratus (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn We must have adequate covfefe of this notable meme. According to Knowyourmeme.com, "“Covfefe” (pronounced “cuv-fey-fey”[14]) is a misspelling of the word “coverage” mistakenly tweeted by President Donald Trump in late May 2017. The tweet was left up for more than six hours before being deleted, leading to a slew of puns, jokes, and confusion, resulting in #covfefe becoming the #1 trending hashtag in the world and prompting coverage from multiple news outlets." It is sad that we are being beaten in coverage by Knowyourmeme. Google shows 20 million hits. We must preserve this for future generations, per the Covfefe act.Covfefe Crusader (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
Endorse per Power~enwiki. It is indeed silly to not include a rationale while closing, but it is not a serious reason to overturn the deletion. Ceosad (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We have no reason to think the closer did anything other than consider the weight of the arguments and arrive at a sensible decision. He correctly saw that the !votes were mainly about the GNG guideline and that they were trumped by numerous "however..." guidelines such as NOTNEWS etc. Plain and simple. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Anna Frodesiak. Also, may I add that many of these overturn !votes appear to be rehashing why the article is notable/should be kept, which is not the point of DRV? SkyWarrior 22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a reasonable outcome of the discussion and I can't find any fault with the closing. AniMate 00:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was an accurate reading of the AfD. While the votes were scattered, many of the keep votes provided justirfication that was either weak or not based on policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I endorse the AFD as at the time it was just a Trump-isim. However with the additional changes, I do think the underlying facts of the case have changed (especially in light of the proposed congressional action) and believe it would be best if the page were restored from deletion, sent to AfC/Drafts to be worked on to pass muster, and then restored to mainspace if the legislation passes. TLDR: AFD was correctly run, but there might be hope for the title. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The closer did not violate protocol and unlike what the initial argument stated, the quantity of votes do not count, so much as the quality. "Covfefe" may become notable enough to warrant its own article in the future, but I do not see that now. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseMergeclosure -- GNG is not a license to print money. It only means that such an article is acceptable, not that it needs to exist. We have many notable topics that exist as parts of other articles. If someone wants to revive the article at some later date, they can file a new AfD some 3 months or more later to "undelete", and see if this is even still a blip, instead of a news event. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseNotavote; closure well within admin's discretion. Lectonar (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep - While normally typos are far from notable (and I've made quite a few typos just on Wikipedia), this one has gotten substantial news coverage and the aforementioned COVFEFE Act named after it; there is more enough coverage in reliable sources to support inclusion, and quite many of the AfD votes on both sides were WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do agree with F2Milk's comment in the AfD that this is just the media playing partisan politics and painting Trump in a bad light as usual, but this is an important event in Trump's presidency thus far, so I believe it does deserve an article. If it's found later on to be nothing more than a news report and thus breaking WP:NOTNEWS, then by all means make a second AfD and try again then, but as it stands I believe it should be kept. 65HCA7 11:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article was not deleted, so I'm not really sure this even belongs here. If the COVFEFE Act article is deemed worthy to remain with us, redirecting there might be a better option, but this decision was sound in all respects. -R. fiend (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorde – The term is appropriately covered in the target article. Merging was a widely-supported outcome given comments from AfD participants on both sides of the notability debate. — JFGtalk 09:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to correct my tyop, but "Endorde" is delightfully covfefesque… — JFGtalk 09:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A little ironic that your use of "covfefesque" adds to the argument to keep the article. Per 192.76.177.124, this is now pop culture, and belongs as an article on Wikipedia. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you saw what I did here… — JFGtalk 21:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to confuse the closing admin? because you are confusing me. Your !vote is to endorse the AfD outcome of a merge, yet your statement makes a strong case why the article should be kept. 96.41.32.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't; typos happen-- you're just being persnickety at this point. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, typos happen, but writing "covfefesque" was deliberate. Can I ask why am I getting under your skin? 96.41.32.39 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICTIONARY is not applicable since the article does not define the word (as it does not have a definition). The article introduces how the word came into existence and the reaction to it. That is very different from a dictionary. I'd still like to know why I got under DARTHBOTTO's skin to entice him to personally attack me. She should know better. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying that you're antagonizing JFG here and now is not a personal attack. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Antagonizing??? (yes, accusing me of that is a personal attack, and you should be admonished for it). I was just asking for a clarification given the conflicting messages. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is nobody discusing my other tyop? — JFGtalk 06:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a serious note, to address IP96's puzzlement, the deletion review must answer "did the closer's decision accurately reflect the balance of the AfD discussion?", to which I clearly answer "Yes. Endorse." Introducing new arguments for or against keeping the article is out of scope for this process. — JFGtalk 06:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is perfectly acceptable to write that the admin properly closed the AfD, but circumstances since then have changed, requiring an overturning of the decision to close as a merge. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
