Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump's Coming Challenge

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 Deleted WP:CSD#G5 by User:Spinningspark. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's Coming Challenge

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

Unreferenced stub for low-notability meme. Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little coverage in reliable sources of this meme/video/hash tag. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Very little coverage", bruh what? https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Trump%27s+Coming+Challenge%22&tbm=nws --NotablePeopleFan (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)~~ struck long-term block-evader sock, who is also creator of the article. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep if worked on. Many sources in the google link above, but someone has to write the article, just putting a one-liner in place is irresponsible. ValarianB (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Couldn't we just mark it as a stub?--NotablePeopleFan (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)~~ struck long-term block-evader sock, who is also creator of the article. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even a stub still has to at least contain a valid basic notability claim, which is not the same thing as a mere statement that the topic exists, before it becomes keepable. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable, unreferenced meme. If nothing else, it's WP:TOOSOON based on the search results. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should only cover this if and when it gets coverage in reliable secondary sources, which I don't see at the moment. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are ten sources being cited in the article, there are two major problems with them: firstly, they're all just reference-bombing a single statement on the order of "this is a thing that exists", and none of them are being used to support any substantive content about it beyond the fact of its existence — and secondly, about half of them are WP:BLOGS rather than reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this — but this, as written, is nowhere near good enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Self-promotional. — JFG ^talk 10:05, 22 November 2016 (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.