Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United States federal hiring freeze


 * 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. Consensus indicates the subject is notable and is not a content fork. Also, merging is not warranted due to the nature of the subject and its coverage. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 United States federal hiring freeze

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete – We don't need a separate article for every paper the President signs… Topic is addressed at First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency and elsewhere. — JFG talk 09:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this is another redundant content fork. The topic is also discussed at Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as author. This article is well referenced and already beyond stub size. The article is not a redundant content fork. It is consistent with Summary_style. The information already in the article could not easily be folded into any of the above-mentioned articles (Trump presidency, timeline, 100 Days) that this one supposedly serves as a "fork" from without a loss of significant detail. If any of these higher level articles contained this level of detail on each action of the Trump presidency, they would quickly become bloated. Having narrowly defined articles to cover topics in depth is completely consistent with Wikipedia's summary style. The alternative is to remove these well-cited details entirely from Wikipedia. Maybe you just don't think this action is notable because "government hiring freezes" sound boring and bureaucratic to you, but this freeze has the potential to significantly affect the operations of the United States government. Just the fact that the action was one of the first undertaken in a new presidency should suggest notability.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above.--98.88.130.68 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only... it is not an executive order; it is a Presidential memorandum Peace, MPS (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bkwillwm. Seems reasonable to me to have a separate article for this (and for any executive orders, memos, etc.). — RockMFR 03:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. Also, no valid deletion rationale is presented. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because it has implications beyond the Trump presidency; has the potential to inform future articles about government reductions. We are keeping Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", and I think this article has the similar potential to be a well sourced "one stop shop" for information about a potentially confusing subject. ''' Peace,  MPS (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FOLLOW UP OBSERVATION Note that the federal hiring freeze is not an executive order but is instead a Presidential Memorandum. ALSO, given the history of the Pokemon Test, I wonder if there should be a general article devoted to the Executive Action Memoranda of Donald Trump (EOs and PMs) of an administration and then give "controversial" executive actions their own "protest/reaction" articles. Compare to how we have Atlantic Hurricane Season articles that list ALL hurricanes for that year, but then create separate articles only for those hurricanes that are notable. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And we already have List of executive actions by Donald Trump covering EOs and memoranda. — JFG talk 20:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but... that "list" makes no attempt to summarize the content of each executive action. The hurricane articles at least give details about what the smaller hurricanes did. Besides, there is no simple summary of the hiring freeze at this point. As the article currently stands, it is clear that the consequences of this memo are still unfolding and making news. I think as long as there is significant confusion and lack of clarity, this hiring freeze will continue to attract journalists' attention. Peace, MPS (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - No deletion rationale. Jdcomix (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or Merge - With all due respect to others here, I'm not really getting why this can be kept other than some subjective or naive views that "all presidential memos should have a separate articles." The media attention on this (relative to everything else on Trump) is fairly low and not much have been followed since the memo was signed. It may be justified to restart the article if this have some significant effects in the coming weeks, but this is not the time yet. Content is good and complete, but it can be fittingly merged into other articles like the First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency with ease. --AsianHippie (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you voted a "strong" delete, I'll pick your response to request clarification as to why this should be deleted. As several others have posted in "keep" statements, no rationale for deletion has actually been presented. The sentiment from the deletionists is that not all EOs or presidential memorandum deserve articles, which is fine, but why should this memorandum not have an article? I haven't heard a specific reason. There's already enough press coverage to create a full, cited article. Why delete the material? Why try to fold it into the "100 days" article? You imply that it is speculative to let this have its own article now, but you have no problem suggesting that it be merged into the "100 days" article even when we're only 10 days into the arbitrary 100. I honestly don't understand the deletionist mentality here: The subject is notable; There are enough sources to flesh out the article; Others have taken the initiative to create the article; What's the point of deleting it? We've already wasted more resources discussing the article than it would take to maintain it, so the maintenance argument does not really stand. I'm sincerely at a loss of understanding.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The usual standard for an EO to have its own article looks pretty stringent: for example, out of 276 orders signed by Barack Obama over 8 years, only 6 have an individual article, including 4 about the sensitive Guantanamo Bay issue. Many of these articles have remained one-paragraph stubs for several years: Executive Order 13491, Executive Order 13492, Executive Order 13567. Sure, there's a lot of media attention currently focusing on every action of the new President, but most of these orders can be treated properly in the main articles purporting to their subject matter. I dare say that such a consolidated presentation is more informative to our readers, instead of being scattered among many articles which repeat each other. For a policy backing of this stance, which is in no way deletionist, see WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. — JFG talk 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the defining characteristic for inclusion in Wikipedia is sufficient WP:RS thereby satisfying content policies (WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR) and WP:GNG. So, it seems to me, the standard for a Wikipedia article about an executive order is - if there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I don't know how that correlates to lack of executive order coverage (270 EOs??) in the Obama Administration - other than they didn't generate enough press for a Wikipedia article to be worthwhile. Or no one bothered to create an article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, the claimed "policies backing this stance" are actually guidelines, just for clarification. Additionally, although some stub Executive Order articles are mentioned above, this article (under discussion) has gone past "stub" on its own merits. This might be later in the conversation after this article was only stub, so that comment might be after the fact - I don't know. That sure is interesting those EO articles are only stubs - and I am guessing there is a purpose for that. And whatever the intent, I like the idea. But, not necessarily for this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steve's responses, but JFG is just leaving me more confused. I don't see any evidence of an existing policy on EOs. How does the continued existence of three Obama EO stubs justify the deletion of a Trump EO? JFG links to the policies WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. JFG, have you actually looked at these pages? They only seem to bolster the argument for inclusion. "PAGEDECIDE" says a page shouldn't be split when context is necessary or when sufficient sources are not available. Clearly sufficient reliable sources are available, so what "context" is lost in splitting this article? Why is it necessary to view this as part of Trump's first 100 days? The policy has ramifications for government functions and the economy beyond the political context in the 100 days article. "AVOIDSPLITS" only has two points: the article must be notable and it shouldn't be POV fork. I haven't seen an argument on either point. Are there actually grounds for deletion beyond throwing up ilinks to WP:BS and making up policies about EOs that are contradicted by the very EO articles you reference, JFG? --Bkwillwm (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete This is a content fork that could be well handled on a Trump presidency page, the timeline, first 100 days, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Serious question for you: How can it be a content fork when you list 3 + etc Trump-related topics that treat this topic with at best one sentence? Doesn't saying it is a "content fork" imply it could be merged back into a single article? Which article would you suggest? And how much of the content do you think should be deleted versus merged? Edited to add: There are entirely legitimate reasons to spin out an article on a notable subject, especially if the content can stand alone. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete - standard and non-notable legislation which doesn't have the legs to stand as an independent article. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * it is not legislation; it is a Presidential memorandum Peace, MPS (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The topic coverage is excellent, including the background section. This is a notable topic that satisfies WP:GNG as evinced by the (WP:RS) reliable sources available that cover this topic. It doesn't matter if it is a memo or an executive order. This topic is having a significant impact that affects millions of federal employees, would be employees, and possibly supply chain businesses. Also, the article seems to have been significantly improved since the AfD discussion has been open. I don't think that coverage of this topic in other already bloated Trump articles will be sufficient. I also don't think coverage in other overview articles will be sufficient such as "Trump's first 100 days" article. As an aside, as has been pointed out, no rationale for delete or merge was provided with opening of the discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Not all presidential memoranda should have an article; many would fit as a section or paragraph in a broader article.  However, this article is sourced enough and long enough to merit its own article, and the memorandum's topic does not fit into a larger preexisting article.  Also, note that the article has been significantly expanded since this AfD bgan. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage in RSes satisfies WP:GNG and more is coming. The depth of coverage in the article would be lost in a merge to some more general topic. Gab4gab (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper - not every topic in the news needs a content fork. This topic should be covered elsewhere. AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:NOTNEWS. JFG's comments above on other EO articles swayed me, I see no issues with merging this article into any of the other articles suggested above.LM2000 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - unlike Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and like EO 13769, this is a real thing, and one that is getting serious ongoing coverage, see, e.g., an essay in the current The New Yorker by James Surowiecki. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable independent topic backed up by reliable and verifiable sources that support the claim of notability. This should be mentioned in other articles relating to the so-called Trump presidency, with this as the main article. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. The sources cited in this article substantiate its notability, and the article provides sufficient depth/detail to warrant a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - not necessarily as a standalone page, but certainly the content belongs somewhere. Merge/redirects can be discussed later, if desired. Neutralitytalk 00:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage in RSes satisfies WP:GNG - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic, and of course the sources already cited satisfy notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG and qualifies as a valid standalone article. This is certainly not a content fork, particularly because source coverage of the topic is not based upon the premise of Trump's first 100 days as president or the premise of the general topic of Trump's presidency in and of itself. Rather, sources have covered and analyzed this particular topic itself in various forms based upon its inherent thesis and its myriad effects and repurcussions. The nominator herein states that the topic is addressed in other articles, but the content in those articles summarizes the topic, rather than providing in-depth and comprehensive coverage of it, whereas this article is well-developed. In addition to the sources provided in the article, the topic continues to receive sustained coverage right up to this very day. See below for examples of recent coverage about this topic. North America1000 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG and qualifies as a valid standalone article. This is certainly not a content fork, particularly because source coverage of the topic is not based upon the premise of Trump's first 100 days as president or the premise of the general topic of Trump's presidency in and of itself. Rather, sources have covered and analyzed this particular topic itself in various forms based upon its inherent thesis and its myriad effects and repurcussions. The nominator herein states that the topic is addressed in other articles, but the content in those articles summarizes the topic, rather than providing in-depth and comprehensive coverage of it, whereas this article is well-developed. In addition to the sources provided in the article, the topic continues to receive sustained coverage right up to this very day. See below for examples of recent coverage about this topic. North America1000 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Federal News Radio. February 13, 2017.
 * Federal News Radio. February 13, 2017.
 * The Hill. February 13, 2017.
 * The Washington Post. February 10, 2017.
 * Alaska Public Media. February 10, 2017.
 * Federal News Radio. February 10, 2017.
 * Society for Human Resource Management. February 10, 2017.
 * The Atlantic. February 9, 2017.
 * Stars and Stripes. February 8, 2017.
 * Flathead Beacon. February 8, 2017.
 * The Huffington Post. February 6, 2017.
 * Santa Fe New Mexican. February 3, 2017.
 * CNBC. February 2, 2017.


 * 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.