Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump derangement syndrome

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. If there are BLP or NPOV problems, they should be discussed and addressed through editing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump derangement syndrome

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to be a opinion article and non encyclopedic and also might be a BLP violation and also a NOTOPINION violation Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to be well-sourced with multiple reliable, verifiable source that establish notability. I don't think this violates WP:NOTOPINION at all; the term itself is a loaded one, for sure, but I think the article describes it accurately and without violating WP:NPOV. In fact, it appears the article describes how the term has been used and defined by both sides of the political aisle, both by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, and by anti-Trump commentators who say it is used by the GOP to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions. Given the subject matter, I think this is a very balanced and well-written article, and a clear Keep vote for me. — Hun ter Ka hn 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable term that has received ample media coverage. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable term with easy compliance with WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a ridiculous term, which is very clearly used in an effort to shut down any criticism of Trump by challenging the critic's sanity in an ad hominem attack without actually engaging the actual substance of the criticism — but it's clearly a notable term nonetheless, and this is a very well-balanced and well-referenced article about it. Our WP:NPOV rules govern the way we write about our article topics, and do not concern themselves with assessments of whether the subject is itself an inherently "neutral" or "biased" thing — NOTOPINION means that we aren't allowed to express our own political opinions in our own editorial voice, and does not mean that we're not allowed to write neutral and well-sourced and balanced articles about the notable opinions of other people. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was nominated for deletion in May 2018, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Derangement Syndrome. The system didn't pick up the previous nomination because the capitalization was different then. The result of that discussion was no consensus. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If its notable but don't like how it's written, then why not rewrite it? Deletion is the only solution? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is ridiculous and the article is a patrolling nightmare. On the other hand, the proposed deletion reasons appear invalid. More importantly, it's (unfortunately) notable enough to have an article. —Paleo Neonate – 18:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fully expect numeration in DSM6. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issues brought up by the person that suggested the deletion make no sense. It's not opinion. It's statements of various people using the terms from a wide variety of backgrounds and sources. It's just more activism and an attempt to suppress speech. Sad! JimmyPiersall (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely a thing, just like Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome.[1] StonyBrook (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although these don't have articles. Well, a merge discussion about this article may eventually happen too despite the AfD... —Paleo Neonate – 07:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources that significantly cover this, so definitely meets WP:GNG. Disagree with WP:NOTOPINION as this article is not merely expressing disapproval of Trump, but rather explaining this term. William2001^(talk) 17:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I disagree with the concept, but it has been covered widely and deeply. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. No basis in policy to delete. There may be an over-reliance on opinion content, but the article cites a number of reliable sources. Clearly notable. R2 (bleep) 23:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Goodness, whether it's the Los Angeles Times, Psychology Today, or even CNN, this is a discussed topic/malady that has plenty of sources and people afflicted. I just have to open my unfiltered facebook page to see it in action. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems well-covered as a meme or slur, not an actual psychological thing. As long as the focus remains on the former, it is a good article to have. Pendragon0 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly notable enough50.202.229.150 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Excepting the IP !vote above, this is obviously a speedy keep. Regardless of consensus, the material is encyclopedic, well-sourced, and it’s inherent notability renders WP:Neologism moot. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Just to pile on... article is clearly very well sourced and meets notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2019 (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.