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.
Keep. Clearly notable; has significant coverage in in-depth sources over a series of years; is not just politically significant, but legally and socially significant as well.
Five seconds of review could easily confirm this; a
WP:TROUT to the nominator for a poorly thought-out AfD.
Neutralitytalk04:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. This material belongs in wikipedia somewhere. It's responsibly written, extensively sourced, and significant. I hear and agree with nom's point about this setting an unhealthy precedent for "my favorite personality on social media" articles, so I'm not in love with the article title. --
Lockley (
talk)
05:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)reply
It really seems to me that it's his twitter use alone that's extremely notable -- it's one the most defining aspects of his presidency. The rest, not so much. But since the nominator is merely proposing to delete it all -- oppose deletion.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Snow keep There is a huge amount of coverage in secondary sources (just one example
Trump Gets a Twitter Library) establishing notability. People will bring up Trump’s use of social media in casual conversation decades in the future, and historians will study it as an example of how technology affected politics.
Samboy (
talk)
15:14, 18 June 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.