Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girther movement

:{{la|Girther movement}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Girther_movement Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Girther movement}})

WP:NOTNEWS. The daily Trump flash in the pan event doesn't need an article in an encyclopedia. Recreate if and when it has shown to have enduring impact and notability in a few months time. Fram (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a story that goes to the heart of the issue of the honesty or otherwise of the most powerful man on the planet. How can it not be news? It has also gone international, achieving coverage in multiple reputable media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.97.50 (talk)
• Delete I agree wholeheartedly with Fram. There are hundreds of articles about President of Americas Donald Trump already, the matter of whether he is 6’2’’or 6’3’’ is almost not relevant, I believe he was measured and found to be 6’3’’ so the matter is resolved and I do not think this tiny detail needs to be documented in an entire article just for it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom + Just some random speculation that seems to have some flimsy logic + a one inch change in height is not exactly huge and could be from better measurement/time of day. Wapo dismisses it out-of-hand pretty much Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete – This is just ridiculous. And obviously non-notable recentism. Let's go back to writing an encyclopedia. (Must admit [https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2018/01/16/donald-trump-height-weight-tim-tebow-mike-trout?utm_campaign=sinow&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_si this source] was hilarious, though.) — JFG ^talk 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - As ludicrous as it sounds, this article is backed up by a number of reliable sources and easily passes the General Notability Guidelines. I think it is a stupid article about a stupid thing, and it makes me want to bash my head on the desk, but it satisfies notability criteria and this is the world we now live in. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

::{{u|Scjessey}}, my friend, if you seriously think this is notable, please allow yourself to WP:IAR sometimes. {{p}} — JFG ^talk 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

:::There are simply too many reliable sources and too much widespread coverage for this to be an IAR situation, as much as it pains me to admit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

::::This indeed has received a lot more coverage than I realized - I sympathize with your !vote - quite a lot of it seems like 109 newspapers reporting though, mostly on the same twitter posts.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

:::::Lots of coverage, yes - but literally all of it is from within the past 24 hours. There's nothing to suggest this will become a subject of enduring value or notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I commented already but after reading the last comment I will add that I think the deletion reason is good but it could be expanded to point out that the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DICT policies say that there should not be articles about every tiny detail and definition which I say is relevant to this article. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

:*That WP:NOT#DICT defense doesn't make a lot of sense. The article is not about the word "girther", but rather it is about a growing movement of people who dispute the report given by the White House physician. Moreover, the fact that it easily passes WP:GNG means WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't really apply. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• At Talk:Donald Trump#Girther movement, I proposed a broader health of Trump page which could somehow incorporate this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, seriously? This is mostly based on two tweets from today. WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS certainly apply here. While I would support including content regarding Trump's health and speculations on it in his article (or the Presidency subarticle), the "Girther" movement does not warrant its own article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete God, no. Somebody invents a cute pun about a claimed discrepancy in one of his physical measurements, and we immediately create an article about it? At most - at MOST, and I don't think it is there yet - it could be mentioned in another article. No way it qualifies for a standalone article and I very much doubt it ever will. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, but we have to be fair when deciding what is and isn't a notable neologism. This is a word said by one journalist, it's not "a thing" at this time. If a genuine article can be made regarding Trump and the bogus "100% fit" stuff emanating from the White House regarding his health, then that's fine. But this isn't that. TheValeyard (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

::If such an article were someday to be created, it would be called "Health of Donald Trump" and would include the entire picture. And that will only happen only if his health becomes an ongoing story of importance to his biography and his presidency. It will not be about a silly 1 inch discrepancy in his reported height. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• oh for heaven's sake DELETE Every controversy over every stupid thing that comes out of the Trump White House doesn't need an article one day after the matter is reported, if for no other reason that he says something almost every day to set someone off. Realistically something else is going to come along in another day or even before the sun sets in DC to push this off the queue of outrages. Write an article about it if there's still substantial furor in the MSM in a couple of months. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - It is a lame topic but relevant to American pop culture, this article has reliable sources and needs more time to evolve or redirected as previously stated. -- Susangrigg1 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

::Did someone suggest a redirect? To what topic? (Btw I note that you are the author of this article. No offense to you is intended if it gets deleted.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

:::Thanks Melanie, none would be taken. (Emir talk) had mentioned a broader article be created on Trump's health. It may also pertain to an article on Anti-fat bias as a public figure and how he both gives and receives this bias of weight.Susangrigg1 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and common sense. Chris Hayes coined a term on his show and we make a page about it? Really? Do the people saying "keep" not see how inappropriate this is? Even if there are enough sources to make a GNG argument, which I don't think there are, WP:IAR and keep this trash to the left wing blogs. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - has failed to achieve significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure neologism. --Tataral (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS; not everything with a hashtag needs an article here. We've got near-below zero temps in New Orleans and Houston, surely that's more important to write an article about than this. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete This is the extreme example I have seen of not news. Let's not even get into how ludicrous the whole things is. People quibbling about 1 inch is just ludicrous. I don't even want to try to count how many times a nurse has asked me my height and just written it down without checking it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per all the valid reasons above. --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete silly news story.LM2000 (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, i believe this is a developing story to which more sources are starting to appear. For example its now been covered several times in UK newspapers. Whilst i agree its a stupid conspiracy, so was the "Birther movement" and thats now a fully fledged page in its own right with some in depth analysis. Personally if this page is deleted, i believe that page should be deleted for the same reasons - seeing the Birther movement page is unlikely to be deleted, that thus means this page should stay Garfie489 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• The "birther" nonsense would have had an immediate impact on the legitimacy of Obama's presidency if it had been in any way true. Whether Trump is 6'3" or 6'1" or whatever has no legal, political, ... impact, it just makes for another "funny" story. Fram (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Garfie489 about its similarities to the Birther movement. I also think this dialog has stirred a lot of emotion which may speak for its importance as an article. Again I think time will tell how far it goes, likely into the upcoming womens march.Susangrigg1 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete This might be the epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Will this trend of making every single new phrase, tweet, article, parody, or word remotely related to Trump never end? This kind of thing is exactly what NOTNEWS is supposed to prevent. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for goodness sake. This could easily be merged into the main Donald Trump article with two sentences after the doctor's conclusion. This does not need its own article. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Merge into an article on Donald Trump mental and physical health theories, or the like. This is only the latest in a string of public contemplations on Trump's mental and physical health dating back at least to his involvement in the 2012 presidential campaign. bd2412 T 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.