Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
 | This is an WP:NTRUMP |
 | This page in a nutshell: Not every single thing the long run . |
_(cropped).jpg)
It happened again, didn't it? Donald Trump, the 47th and previously 45th president of the United States, did something outrageous. The common reaction happens as follows:
"Oh my gosh, it's on
is flipping out about it! Quick, we have to add it to Wikipedia!"
Well... hold up. Not so fast. This does not necessarily need to be mentioned on Wikipedia, much less require its own article.
Why not?
As a person with a complex history concerning the
Even if there is media coverage, hold on. That doesn't necessarily mean anything. If it's passing insubstantial coverage, consider leaving the topic alone – much of news is vulnerable to
Take special care with news stories that basically boil down to "Trump posted something on a social network". Sometimes politicians may use social networks to make important announcements: it reaches the public quicker than press conferences, people can share it, and it will mentioned by the press anyway. But in other cases, it may be just a joke post. If it is the latter, it should probably be ignored. It does not matter if it was posted by an official account, a joke post is still a joke post regardless.
Typical complaints
"This topic totally qualifies by all your criteria! Why was my article deleted / redirected?"
- So maybe your topic is relevant, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own separate article. It may well be best served as a short paragraph in an existing article. Check out Immigration policy of Donald Trump, Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, and so forth. If the section gets really long, it can always be split back off to a separate article later.
"But people were pissed about it!"
- Okay. Who? Was it someone whose outrage about Trump has a prospect to lead to a notable event, such as trade restrictions, a land dispute, a war, or generally anything consequential? Or was it just a bunch of social mediausers making angry posts? So what people were miffed about something Trump did? People simply being angry at something does not indicate notability, nor does a bunch of negative Twitter and Bluesky posts constitute an actual controversy that Wikipedia should cover.
"Look at all of the sources covering this topic, it is too notable!"
- Throwing the WP:RECENTISM.
"Why are you covering up this horrible crime Trump revealed?" (Or, alternatively...)
"Why was my section on this wild, obviously false accusation that shows Trump is crazy deleted?"
- An additional concern with Donald Trump is the "allegations" problem. Per the biography of living persons policy, if the thing that Donald Trump did lately was "claim negative/criminal things about another living person", that topic needs to be handled very carefully. Sometimes, the allegation is both sufficiently covered in reliable sources as well as unavoidably a notable part of the person's experience (Joe Scarborough § Feud with Donald Trumpfor an example), but in general, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution – even when the accuser is or was a world leader. Better to say nothing than to say something libelous.
"Well this is censorship!"
- We're sorry you feel that way. We have policies and guidelines that are built off of community consensus and determines how we grow Wikipedia. We apply these as evenly as we can whether it's an article about Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Sailor Moon.
Not always In the news material
After creating or updating an article with Trump's latest shenanigans, the next step is usually to propose it at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates—which is not always a good idea. The requirements to appear at the {{In the news}} template of the main page are usually much higher than those the creation of an article. Even if it deserves a dedicated article, an event should have a reasonable lasting significance in the US (such as the January 6 United States Capitol attack) or international impact rather than a merely domestic one (such as Tariffs in the second Trump administration).
As
Not just Trump
This essay was written in reference to Donald Trump, but the points within it can equally apply to any public figure or institution that is influential enough to the point that the press reports their every single movement, knowing that they will have readers ready to learn about them. For the purposes of this essay and Wikipedia, you can think of "Donald Trump" as a placeholder name rather than a specific reference to a single figure.