Talk:Mug shot of Donald Trump

{{edit semi-protected|Mug shot of Donald Trump|answered=y}}

Please remove the link to the List of photographs considered the most important article in the see also section. This photo does not yet meet the criteria for inclusion on this article, and the link has been removed several times previously for this reason. Including a link to that article not only potentially breaks WP:NPOV, but it has also led to several editors attempting to add this mug shot to the article's list without understanding the criteria. 150.143.118.247 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This was very contentious, and closed earlier, but I want to revisit this. (I'm just talking, haven't actually AfD'd it.) Ok. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I just want to mention that the incredibly historical photos of the RFK assassination, Lyndon Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One after JFK's assassination, and a photo of Buzz Aldrin on the moon do not have their own pages. Photos that do have their own page include Migrant Mother and Earthrise. This photo has not been nearly as documented. Anyways, enough with the other stuff arguments, but I'd like to let that sit.

In other things, this article may violate Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. For example, there's a whole paragraph near the end of the "Reactions" section about Donald Trump posting a meme on his socials. This is a clear violation of this norm, and we don't have to write about every tweet. He tweeted a meme. This is not wikipedia-worthy, and violates notability guidelines.

This article may violate Wikipedia:Recentism. This has been covered extensively recently; notice how we have tons and tons of pages for Trump scandals but much less for historical presidential scandals; that is Recentism, and we should discourage it.

This article may violate Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

This article may violate Wikipedia:PAGEDECIDE, in my opinion because much of the article doesn't provide unique information. For example, the whole background section is redundant with the event page. Parts of the reactions section are reactions to Donald Trump's indictment, not just the photo. Others, including the Telegraph's "reaction," is literally just a description of the image. Another example is the Robbie Collin's reaction. The main source for that is a Forbes article about memes in response to Trump's indictment. This is not a solid source, Robbie Collins isn't particularly notable. This article is too long, and unnecessary; large parts are redundant. We don't need to know how random newspapers described the image.

This article may also violate WP:NPOV, particularly concerning the Maureen Dowd reaction section; the article's tone implies that this is like a fact, when it's an opinion.

I don't think this article, specifically passes the 100 year test. Yes, the fact that Trump was criminally indicted and a mug shot was taken definitely passes, but an article about the mugshot itself, just the picture (not the event) doesn't pass, in my opinion.

Recommendation: merge with Georgia election racketeering prosecution. That page is not super long, and the entire content of this article could reasonably be added as a section when redundancies and unnecessary bits are removed. Parts of this article can also be moved to reactions to the event as a whole, and how the case and indictment was used for Trump's election campaign and in democratic oppo.

Disclaimer: Please don't crucify me; I don't support Donald Trump at all, I just want to make sure that Wikipedia is a good source with necessary articles. Opinions, especially political ones, are not at play here and should not be in play at any point in Wikipedia editing. That's the idea anyway. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump's mug shot hangs in the White House.jpg

:Per 2025 coverage like [https://www.npr.org/2025/02/20/g-s1-49690/trump-mug-shot-oval-office][https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4mmrr7j8mo][https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/17/us/politics/trump-inauguration-photo.html][https://people.com/donald-trump-recreates-mug-shot-new-official-portrait-8775721][https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2025/02/14/trump-frames-2023-mug-shot-hangs-it-outside-the-oval-office/] (see WP:SUSTAINED), I don't think an afd has any chance whatsoever for the time being. Perhaps, after his presidency, this article will go the way of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_the_Magic_Negro&oldid=714052489 Barack the Magic Negro], but it will not happen now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)