Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Some of the keep !votes are 'keep for now', others are unequivocally 'keep'. Regardless, there is a clear consensus against deletion and for keeping. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference

Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a collection of news. Not to mention it has no sources, and I believe it belongs in draft or needs to be deleted.

• Delete Good grief. This may become a sentence in one of our labyrinth of Trump articles, but if we had standalones for every minor gaffe of that campaign, the category would start throwing LUA errors. Okay, that took off more than expected. There's a number of solid articles out that treat this thing as a kind of book-end to the entire campaign (e.g. [1]), which I guess satisfies
  WP:LASTING. Let's keep it then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I created the article. I think it has a similar level of fame as St. John's Church photo op --User101010 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of 254 instances of substantial coverage seems to belie that statement... indeed you apparently couldn't be troubled to include even a single one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Changing my vote to keep given the ongoing media coverage and the likelihood of the event having enduring cultural significance. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOTNEWS, less notable than the church photo op. Unless there is a suitable redirect target, but I don't know what. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. Too hasty, I still think it contains

WP:NOTNEWS, but it clearly does meet GNG. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Needs extensive improvement but I think there should be an article about this event which has been much discusssed in the news media - there are articles about it in the Independent, Guardian, Vox, The Atlantic, Huff Post, Metro and New York Times, not to mention smaller local papers {Google News results}. It's notable that it was the event / place where someone (Giuliani) was trying to give a press conference about the Trump campaign's next move but instead learned of Biden's win (and was rather dismissive of that news). It seems almost plausible (though, granted - hearsay) that the location was actually intended given that previous press conferences that week were signal jammed by Biden supporters shouting 'Count Every Vote' and a DJ playing music to drown out one of the speakers. Apparently a quieter location was planned to avoid that, though I still struggle to believe they intentionally chose this location. The confusion is said to have arisen after Trump, who was given correct info about the location by phone, misheard and (understandably, given his hotel business) related to his Twitter followers that it was being held in the 'Four Seasons'.

"Earlier in the week, Bondi and Lewandowski attempted to hold a press conference in the city following a court decision that allowed poll watchers to stand just 6 feet from workers counting ballots, rather than 20 feet. They tried to spin the ruling as a win; however, a DJ nearby blasted Beyoncé music and completely drowned out their remarks."^[1]

"In reality, the mistake was not in the booking, but in a garbled game of telephone. Mr. Giuliani and the Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski told the president on Saturday morning their intended location for the news conference and he misunderstood, assuming it was an upscale hotel, according to multiple people familiar with the matter."^[2]

Comedy ensued. JoBrodie (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOTNEWS | MK17b | (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not only completely unsourced, but implies that Rudy Giuliani booked the location by mistake; the sources cited by JoBrodie indicate that Giuliani intentionally held the conference at the landscaping business since it was in one of the more Trump-friendly locations in Philadelphia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question Would it be better or worse to create an article about the company instead of the press conference? Not sure which one is better or worse.--User101010 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the event is IMO notable but the company is not, independently of the event. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! User101010 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a section on the
  talk 02:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and source adequately. The question for anyone !voting here on notability grounds is not whether the article is unsourced as it presently stands. It is, if reliable independent sources are added, is it notable? The Washington Post has written a whole article about this. So has The New York Times. If something in American national politics is covered so extensively, so non-trivially, by those two news organizations and yet remains non-notable, then every word of our notability policies is nullified. (Oh, it wasn't just American media. I haven't found any foreign-language coverage yet, but I bet it will be there since there were foreign journalists present).

  In these delete !votes, I read the subtext of "OK, it's notable, but it shouldn't be". Too bad. We do not allow ourselves to decide that—if we did, we wouldn't have the Streisand effect article when we did. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • But this seems to be
    recentism -- something that some editors believe deserves an encyclopedia article because it was covered in several newspapers in the last 24 hours. I'm sure we could find some minor events that were the subject of articles in multiple major newspapers during, say, the Warren Harding administration, but Wikipedia editors are not as interested in those events because they didn't show up in their Facebook feeds today. At best, this conference seems to be an aspect of Donald Trump's overall effort to contest the election results, although I can't find a separate Wikipedia article about that yet; if there is one, this press conference could get a sentence or two there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

"Wikipedia editors are not as interested in those events because they didn't show up in their Facebook feeds today." Which does not mean they aren't still notable now (cf. Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House) Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the comparison helps us to conclude anything either way about this press conference. All the citations in Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House published at least 70 years after the dinner, including a book about the dinner published 112 years later. We can speculate as to what events of the Trump administration historians will be most interested in many years from now, but that doesn't mean that we need to put all of them into the encyclopedia now. To take another perspective, we have broken up the Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency into at least 17 articles, with one more to come for early 2021, whereas we only have 14 events listed in the single article Timeline of the Herbert Hoover presidency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper historical research could probably extend the latter to almost the same amount. "Recentism" can also mean a bias in favor of more recent events where we can easily find sources through keyboard taps rather than odysseys through large college libraries and archives. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has now been significantly improved and is not comparable to the stub it was yesterday. --Fippe (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now per Fippe's observation, with perhaps a mind to come back in a month or two and evaluate whether it holds up as a notable event with more distance BlackholeWA (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although as I wouldn't be averse to it being condensed into a larger page on the transition, especially if it proves to be a drawn out and unusual process Frobird (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way it has been framed as the "last moment of Donald Trump's presidency" and the unusual choice of location/tweet mixups leading to a significant amount of attention are why I think it deserves to be singled out versus the many other press conferences or campaign events which were not as singularly important.Frobird (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This AfD could serve as a case study in rushing to nominate an article for deletion before editors have had a chance to flesh it out and, in so doing, justify its existence. In this instance, the AfD was posted just 14 minutes after the article was created. It is an abuse of process and should be closed as Keep. NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion - revisit Hello again from the obviously biased creator of this article. I like the idea from BlackholeWA to keep it up for a month or two to give it a chance and then revisit. I really didn't think this article would get so much immediate attention with editing the article and with discussing deletion. I came to Wikipedia to read more about it and was surprised to not see an article on it. I'm not a regular editor, so I just created it with the intention of just getting it started as a stub and then making it better. Many thanks for everyone's ideas here.  :-) User101010 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article as it is now completely meets
  WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets GNG. The early delete !votes cast before sources were added to the article should carry little weight..-- P-K3 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It's gained a surprising amount of coverage from many new outlets, including some from outside the US. Strong
  WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close and reconsider in one month. This article looks good now, but I feel it's really a case of
  WP:NOTNEWS. An individual press conference doesn't necessarily deserve an article, just because a lot of journalists laughed at it. And the business certainly isn't notable outside of this event. If a month from now, people are still talking about 'Four Seasons Total Landscaping', then keep it; but if it's passed from the media memory and just become one of many other strange events in 2020 that briefly attracted interest, it would be best being merged somewhere else or deleted. Robofish (talk
  )
• Keep widely covered in the news as respresentative of a larger pattern of behaviour and a metaphor for the Trump campaign. John Cummings (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTNEWS means we don't write like a newspaper; not that we can't write about things that are in the news. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Despite the substantial media coverage, I share the sentiment of Robofish above. All of the sources so far are news coverage, so
  WP:NEVENTS guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I would like to point out in relation to the sources, there is one that is purely a transcript rather than news and another one is an obituary. Itisdiplomatic (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your point? Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to

WP:NOTNEWS, a significant portion of the article, particularly in the Event subheading, contains information that relates to and is based upon the transcript citation, as opposed to news sources. Itisdiplomatic (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

As long as we do not provide any unattributed interpretation or analysis of the transcript, just restating what it says, it can be used as a source.

As for the obit, I added it because there was a dispute as to whether the transcript or the Inquirer article gave the proper spelling of a name. The latter source mentioned the obituary, so I searched for it, and that settled the question.

Really, though, this has no bearing on this AfD. This discussion is properly held on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Pawnkingthree. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per arguments by NedFausa, Fippe, Daniel Case, and John Cummings. -Mardus /talk 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per ditto. Haven't checked the edit history; it wouldn't surprise me if the initial article was barebones and delete-worthy. But it's been nicely sourced since then and has taken on added symbolic resonance in the media above and beyond the typical Trump news-of-the-weird story. (If the result is delete, it at the very least needs a subsection in the 2020 United States presidential election article.) --Jordan117 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've already voted (keep) and am delighted that things are moving more in that direction. The story continues to delight, amuse and baffle me - here's a BBC reporter covering it [2] and Carly Aqulino's very funny TikTok in which she tries to talk about it but can't keep a straight face, haha [3]. JoBrodie (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I find it all amusing, I still don't think the incident is notable. Do we have any other articles on press conferences? It probably deserves a mention on the presidential campaign article, but no more than a few sentences. I don't think this will be important in 5-10 years. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Richard Nixon's November 1962 press conference, where he famously said: "You don't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." NedFausa (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another answer: I think it's that it's the whimper at the end of Trump's campaign. A tiny venue, not on the scale of previous press conferences, and journalists packing up while it's happening because the election result had been called, and in Biden's favour. The incident seems notable for that, not to mention that it has had fairly extensive coverage, and the fact that it's amusing is just a bonus.JoBrodie (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: This article was nominated for deletion 14 minutes after it was created, it has grown considerably since that time, what are the rules in a deletion discussion when the article that is now being discussed is completely different to the article that was nominated? John Cummings (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I don't think there are any; it is strictly up to the individual !voters to reconsider their earlier votes if they desire for the remainder of the week and leave things up to a closing admin. This sort of rescue is, after all, one of the possible outcomes contemplated by the process. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While this article may eventually be considered NOTNEWS (in a couple of years), for the moment it is current and relevant. I came here trying to understand someone's reference to "Four Seasons Total Landscaping", and this cleared it up perfectly; the article is properly fulfilling the purpose of any article on Wikipedia, to inform.184.0.143.99 (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this event seems to have taken on a reputation far more extensive than your regular "dumb thing that happened during the Trump administration", it seems to have acquired a somewhat symbolic value, which means I reckon it has a good chance of passing
  WP:NOTNEWS. If not, it can always be deleted later. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This event is a massive win in terms of fun in an otherwise sad and serious year (covid, wildfires, hurricanes, etc.). Agree, it can be deleted at some point (if necessary) to conform with WP rules, but for now, please consider retaining said article. Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I agree with Elmidae's amusing remarks on not wanting to have an article for every gaffe, I think that this event stands out from the bulk of them. Not only because of the timing (the race being called during the conference), but also because of the significance of this 'ending' of the Trump administration (Re: "It began on a gold escalator. It may have ended at Four Seasons Total Landscaping"[4]). Whatever the case, interest and therefore references, now don't seem to be in short supply![5]

  …it certainly drew attention. Two days on, the event at the Four Seasons continues to generate stories from Politico, USA Today, The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, the list is a long one. But credit where credit's due, The Philadelphia Inquirer has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on this story, publishing a detailed accouunt of the whole thing.

  — Ros Atkins, The Trump campaign 'Four Seasons' saga explained, BBC News

  Aluxosm (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This event meets the requirements for notability and is being discussed by a broad swath of reliable sources^[1] as an event of independent importance from typical campaign gaffes. Arguments per notability or not news requirements do not hold any merit. Reliable sources have clearly cemented this as both a notable and newsworthy event of cultural significance beyond the obvious political significance of it which has already been discussed ad nauseum above.

". . . [We are here] to see the newest Philly landmark," the 27-year-old said. Grobman, who had already purchased a Four Seasons T-shirt said the fact that the press conference ended up here of all places speaks to what she loves about her home city . . .^[2]

Saimouer (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Widely discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Template: Rudy Giuliani and 2020 United States presidential election now link to this article --User101010 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is referenced in many articles and the subject of profiles in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the local Philadelphia paper. As the site of where many US and international media heard about the 2020 election being called for Biden it also features in many stories about the end of Trump's 2020 bid for the presidency. The site has itself become the subject of several works based upon it, notably a VRChat location and several Zoom Background templates. It is, at this point, likely to be an enduring location relevant to the election and Trump's presidency. I agree the article can be improved, as all articles can. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that

WP:RECENTISM is worth looking at here, with particular attention to the section "Recentism as a Positive." TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep A normal press conference may not be worthy of its own article, but this one was not normal. It has been widely reported across the globe, and is clearly notable, primarily due to its unusual location. Bazonka (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A fine example of the Trump administration's absurdist incompetence, somewhere between a crematorium and sex shop, sums up the last 4 years. Acousmana (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  The consensus appears to be to keep. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Sufficient discussion in international media. Iconic event of the 2020 election. Moncrief (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are articles about it even here in the Czech Republic, eg. in the traditional newspaper Lidové noviny: [6]--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable as emblematic of the behaviour and ideology of an administration during an election campaign, similar to
  Gould-Thatcher exchange in 1983. Not wanting to WP:CRYSTALBALL but this will live on in cultural memory for years.yorkshiresky (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep We may not like it but the man isn't some random celebrity, he's the POTUS, most of the outrageous things he does ends up being notable, no matter how dumb. The coverage is there and its too much content to easily merge into any other article.
  talk) 23:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Important to the 2020 US Election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.54.26 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is clearly notable and of great relevance to the 2020 Election process. It definitely belongs on Wikipedia. Herbfur (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - all humorous angles aside, Politico reported today that the press conference resulted in many Trump lawyers declining to further represent him in his legal challenges to the election results. That is clearly a pretty big impact and makes this press conference even more notable. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 06:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not sure why this is a big discussion other than the fact the article is a bit low quality which means fix it not delete it, the facts are a) it’s a widely reported event b) it is linked to from a few articles now c) the argument that “basically no press conferences have Wikipedia articles” well that’s because the intention is to relay info to media that would then be attributed to the relevant articles but when the conference itself is an event then why not give it an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.49.31 (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was an event discussed worldwide and that had significant ramifications for the president, given that most of his lawyers resigned after this debacle. The article needs work but is fundamentally newsworthy. Hitherandthithering (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Event covered worldwide. Most of Trump's lawyers resigned after this. Is likely to remain of interest in the future. Hunter 18:13, 15 November 2020 (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.