Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumpism

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 redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Opinions are about equally divided between keep, redirect and delete. There are what seem to be valid arguments on both sides; whether one considers this term to describe the same thing as Political positions of Donald Trump (making it a content fork), or a separate topic (a distinct ideology vs. a disparate set of positions) is a matter of editorial judgment which I can't determine by fiat. What I can tell, however, is that on balance we have consensus to not continue to cover this as a separate article. In such cases I find that the best thing to do is to close the AfD as a redirect, which allows subsequent editorial consensus to work out whether and what to merge from the history into the target article. Sandstein 08:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism

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

~~This article seems to exist only to criticize Donald Trump (note that the lede says Trumpism is based on the CONTROVERSIAL remarks of Donald Trump - in other words, the bad stuff).~~ Previous incarnations had more detail, but very little that was definitive or factual. I deleted one particularly outrageous, poorly sourced claim[1] which by itself makes me think the article and its history should be erased. What remains is just an attempt to establish that Trumpism is a word, and evidence that there are various theories about what Trump believes but nobody is really sure. IMO there is nothing here worth salvaging. I propose that the article be deleted and then redirected to Political positions of Donald Trump, where it is already mentioned and briefly described. MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you deleted was actually one of the few claims in that article that actually was sourced. Most of the article before hand was just a bunch of stuff somebody made up about what *they* thought "Trumpism" was and then tacked on sources to make it look legit (it wasn't).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This title was originally created as a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump; it was RfD'ed and kept in November. [2]] It was expanded to an article later that month by User:‪LavaBaron‬, who I am pinging as the actual author of the article. In the history I noticed another outrageous addition to the article [3]; it was promptly deleted but IMO gives yet another reason to nuke the whole thing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions by LavaBaron (thank you) have restored neutrality to the article. But still, all it includes is: proof that the word exists, a list of a few catchwords, and evidence that people can't agree on what Trumpism is. I still favor delete and redirect to the more substantive article Political positions of Donald Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which revisions would those be? He created that mess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Donald Trump. This is actually about him, not some "...ism." BTW I didn't find the article so negative, just poorly worded in a couple of places. Which was easy to do considering the vagueness of the topic.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - For a number of reasons, the best of which is probably WP:NOTNEO. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - After taking a closer look at the sources following LavaBaron's prompting, the term appears to get direct coverage from RS and probably meets notability criteria which is the fundemental basis for inclusion. Still seems a little un-encyclopedic though! I grudgingly switch to "Weak Keep" NickCT (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just to be clear, this article was not created "only to criticize Donald Trump." This is the original form of the article which was even and balanced [4]. I even posted a notice that I had created the article to the Donald Trump WikiProject. Obviously, it has attracted some SPAs and IP editors since then. (1) I'd suggest the way to resolve SPAs and IP editors is through protecting an article, not deleting it, (2) I have restored the substantive elements that make the article encyclopedic and am pinging NickCT, MelanieN, Kitfoxxe with a request they take another look at it now. "Bulletproof" LavaBaron (Survivor of 4 DYK TBAN Attempts) (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: - I don't really care whether the page was or was not created to criticize Donald Trump. My only question is whether the subject is notable and I don't see evidence that it is. Could you point at the specific notability criteria you feel supports the inclusion of this article? NickCT (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: my apologies, I didn't mean to imply that you had claimed the page was created to criticize Donald Trump, my comment was directed towards something another editor had said and I perhaps didn't make that clear enough. I believe it merits inclusion on the basis of WP:WORDISSUBJECT similar to Gaullism, Craxism, Sihanoukism, Owenism, Garveyism, Powellism, etc. On another level, beyond WORDISSUBJECT, I believe it meets GNG on the basis of it being declared one of the "10 words of the year" of 2016 and that naming receiving widespread coverage in RS [5], [6], [7], etc. LavaBaron (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears to be a word used in the media. Los Angeles Times, MIC, Rolling Stone, Post. Just like a Bushism. ValarianB (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great non-policy based argument, followed by an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Bushism" is an entirely different concept. It says "This article is about George W. Bush's often unconventional use of English. For his political ideologies, see Political positions of George W. Bush." Similarly, for Trump's political ideologies we have his "political positions" article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure I pointed out solid reliable sourcing, followed by a reminder that we have articles on similar topics with similar sourcing, Nick. No need for hostile tones. ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a neologism or a term of convenience, not an actual thing. Not an ideology, not a "theory", not... anything except "stuff that Trump said". Usage of the term in some sources is necessary but not sufficient for notability. Whatever is useful can be placed in Political positions of DT article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources alone is sufficient for notability. Of course, we can always debate what the meaning of the word "significant". NickCT (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect While reasonably sourced and NPOV versions exist, the problem here is called WP:SYNTH. Yes, there are sources that have used the topic. But this is more of an anthology of quotes, than coverage of the topic. Not enough time has elapsed to view the topic as presented as something that exists without Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Add: Since WP:SYNTH does not have a WP:DEL-REASON, add WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Political positions of Donald Trump . What people consider Trumpism is referenced there already. p b p 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. On the surface, this seems like a vanguard set of policies, like Reaganomics. In reality, it's a neologism with little actual substance behind it. It does not seem to be a subject that should be WP:FORKED from one of the main articles.- Mr X 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. The subject of the article appears to be indistinguishable from that of Political positions of Donald Trump. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure. Nearing the million search results it jumps the GNG easily. While it now could still be both a redirect or a short article, it is very likely to develop soon but yet not easy to predict if more like Bushism, Reaganism, Kennedyism, Fordism and many other -isms like LavaBaron cited above. --S I 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the examples you give: Reaganism is a redirect (to Political positions of Ronald Reagan). Kennedyism is a redirect (to John F. Kennedy). Bushism has nothing to do with political positions; it's about the odd ways GWB used the English language. And Fordism is about Henry Ford, not Gerald Ford. Not a very convincing argument to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim my examples were not a good argument, but my argument is the pure amount of the use of this word in RS, what clearly establishes notability. + trumpisme, trumpismo, Trumpismus, q:Trumpism ... That the reception of what Trumpism is and that the content of the article does and will certainly develop is no reason for deletion, too. --S I 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But how does the topic of Trumpism differ from the poltical positions of Donald Trump? We don't have separate articles about different names for the same concept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump per MrX; the sources use this term in a broad variety of ways; this is a neologism with no settled meaning, or even any unifying theme. Neutrality^talk 00:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Until we get a taste of what Trump will actually do in the next few years, there is no basis to define Trumpism except speculation and fantasy. Weak support for a redirect to political positions, although this might encourage further raging flame wars there. — JFG ^talk 20:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to political positions of Donald Trump, noting that this was the result of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_10#Trumpism. Protect the page to prevent recreation if necessary. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I hear frequent references to Trumpism on television and radio, by notable people such as former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. The only hesitation I have about keeping the article is that we don't yet know what Trumpism will really turn out to mean, as we aren't even into the first 100 days of his presidency. I would suggest keeping the article as a brief stub and expanding it as the meaning becomes more widely agreed upon over time. Most of the other Trump articles to which it could be merged or redirected are already bloated, unfortunately.--FeralOink (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again this argument doesn't address the question of how the topic of this article is different from that of political positions of Donald Trump. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to political positions of Donald Trump and Merge some of the information in this article there. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The so-called ideology has significant following and has been covered in the media. MB298 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what distinguishes Trumpism from the political positions of Donald Trump? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The political positions article is already extremely long. Identifying an ideology is more of an academic exercise. JJARichardson (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article can't seem to identify or define the ideology. Definitions, academic and otherwise, are all over the map. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has academic sources and the topic is notable. However it needs a clean up. Rupert Loup (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many more times does the question need to be asked before people stop ignoring it? What is the difference between Trumpism and the political positions of Donald Trump? I feel that I'm getting into Paxmanesque territory because of the number of times this question has failed to be answered. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to political positions of Donald Trump. This is always going to be a battleground because most people who follow this ideology are unlikely to accept a lot of the fundamentals about it (e.g. that it is founded on bigotry and ignorance of reality). Guy (Help!) 11:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Not a sufficiently distinct topic. See WP:NOPAGE. ~~If we find out people don't like that redirect target, then we can delete it, retarget it, and say the first one didn't exist.~~ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until it gets secondary sources, i.e. sources produced when this is no longer a current topic. Anything written now is part of this subject's time period, so it's a primary source for this specific subject. If it endures, e.g. fifty years from now we're talking about the latest influence of Trumpist politicians, sources written between now and then will potentially be secondary sources at least for the origins of the movement. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 12 December 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.