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 no consensus. Default to keep. There was good conversation concerning repurposing the page by either merging or creating a new page all together. This conversation can certainly continue on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump Derangement Syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about a neologism supported by opinion columns and inferior sources like Washington Times and DrHurd.com. Does not appear to be a serious encyclopedic subject that could be expanded in any meaningful way. Fails WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NEO. - MrX 🖋 12:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I de-PRODded this because I felt it was far too controversial for a PROD. I'm neutral on the AfD for now. Smartyllama (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, or at least redirect to target of Bush derangement syndrome. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination). It's not quite clear to me which of the many articles about Trump's presidency would be the right merge (or redirect) target for this. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at least merge to Donald Trump. MrX failed to mention the wide variety of sources that were on the page including the Washington Post, New Yorker, National Review,  Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune.  More sources have been added including more from Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, Time, Forbes, and local newspapers.  It is obvious that the term is notable, as it has been mentioned by a wide variety of sources in publication and in television, both liberal and conservative.  The aims of WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NEO are not applicable here.  The article is balanced.  There is a wide range of point of views and sources.  The term is used for reflection and by critics as the article states.  As far as WP:NEO (if this is considered to be a neologism, which no source calls it), the majority of the articles cite what reliable sources "say about the term or concept."  They are "not just sources that use the term."  Therefore, it does not fail WP:NEO either.  This is not going to be obsolete.  It has been widespread usage from 2016 to present. --JimmyPiersall (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Donald Trump or other appropriate target. Stand-alone stub article. The term might not be obsolete in the short term, however when another president gets in the White House (at the very latest in 6 + something years, though probably before then), the term will not be used anymore. Therefore, per WP:RECENTISM, and in the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS, there is no need for us to cover every appearance of this term or op-ed about it in a separate article. The similar section about Bush is in the rticle Public image of George W. Bush - given all the controversy Trump has generated, I wonder why such a corresponding article has not yet been created. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A small one apparently did exist until March 2017: see WP:Articles for deletion/Public image of Donald Trump (2nd nomination). The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to either Donald Trump or Protests against Donald Trump, to which Criticism of Donald Trump redirects. (On a side note, I'm not really sure that redirect is appropriate - there has been plenty of criticism of Trump that wouldn't qualify as protests.) A merge is definitely appropriate here, but I'm not sure the appropriate target. If this AfD closes with consensus to merge but no consensus on the target, discussion should continue on the talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Why? Nineteen sources. And counting. If we delete an article with so many high quality sources we'll have to delete 20% of the pedia. Yes, it's a stub now, but with nineteen sources it can be expanded nicely. – Lionel(talk) 06:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But this isn't just a matter of WP:SIGCOV it is also a question on whether this is a valid split or no. So far, this seems like a term of minor importance, with maybe lot of documented usage but little significant long-term impact (or encyclopedic value) - so a section in a properly titled article would be more appropriate. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 06:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 13:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not seeing the significant, in-depth coverage here for this neologism. Being randomly mentioned in passing in various articles or op-eds is insufficient. Neutralitytalk 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every time the US president is a Republican, conservative pundits always try to create a narrative that any opposition to his agenda whatsoever is motivated by inherent insanity rather than moral or legal principle. The existence of this phrase could certainly be noted with one or two sentences in the relevant other articles, but it is not a notable concept that requires a standalone article in its own right — it's just a straight revival of the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" rhetoric of a decade ago, and it was garbage rhetoric even then. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a notable term. Sources are rubbish and/or op-eds. Similar sourcing can be found for 'Obama Derangement Syndrome', yet I think everyone here would find a Wikipedia article for that a complete waste of space. That is to say, unless either 'Obama Derangement Syndrome' or 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' develop into phenomena of detailed and significant coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lionelt. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This shouldn't be an article about Donald Trump because this is about people who react to Trump, not about Trump himself. Trump is a huge topic and it makes sense to split off topics that aren't about him directly. When you look this term up on Google News and Google Scholar, you can see this is already a widespread but very specific term. I looked through the sources that were already cited in the article. National Review defines Trump Derangement Syndrome as "disgust at his manner and his tweets such that all distinctions between him and genuine villains is lost." That seems to be the generally accepted definition of the term, which is what's described in the other sources. The New Yorker has an article about the subject. The Washington Post has several articles that discuss the topic. Even conservative outlets like Fox News have discussed it in print and even had a segment of it on TV. Newspapers all over the country have published articles that include significant discussion about the phenomenon. It's discussed in scholarly articles in English and French. The article passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in independent sources over time. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see how this topic could be part of an article about Criticism of Donald Trump, but as pointed out, that redirects to Protests against Donald Trump, which is not appropriate for this article. I think the best outcome would be to make it so Protests against Donald Trump redirects to Criticism of Donald Trump, and this topic is included as a section of Criticism of Donald Trump. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even better: Make Criticism of Donald Trump a full article, and have Protests against Donald Trump be a summarized subsection there with a template to link to the main article - keeping both. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NEO; significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of availalbe sources which are passing mentions and / or opinion pieces. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Another symptom of the recentism bias Wikipedia suffers from, especially in regards to politics. Sure anyone could lazily say "easily passes GNG", but you are ignoring NOTNEWS, a fundamental policy, at the encyclopedia's own peril. Let us not forget policy just to get in a jab at Trump with an unnotable neologism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are political operatives coming onto the fold such as that are making judgments about the article based on his or her opinion of conservatives. There is also the term "Clinton Crazies," which has its own article, that regards a term from the opposite political perspective.  There are also weasel words being used to discredit sources such as "random," "rubbish," and "passing."  Many of the sources refer to the term continually and are entire pieces about the syndrome.  Yes, there was Bush Derangement syndrome, but if you want to start throwing your political opinions in, let's be honest.  If Bush Derangement was a thing, it was nothing compared to Trump Derangement.  As the sources show, liberals like Fareed have taken notice of it.  Another political operative stated that Obama Derangement Sydrome received equal coverage, which is incorrect.  An internet search of "Obama derangement syndrome" turns up many "Trump derangement syndrome" articles and does not have the backing of a variety of mainstream sources like Trump Derangement does with CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, National Review, New Yorker, Time, Forbes, Chicago Tribue, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Newsweek, Salon, and CBC ranging from 2016 to present.  Just because one can throw around WP: articles, it doesn't mean they actually apply as I have pointed out specific cases earlier. JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. CNN, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Boston Herald, and many other reputable news sources all have published articles in which "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is the subject.  These are, of course, not "rubbish sources" and they clearly establish the notability of the subject no matter how much we wish it weren't so.  ANDREVV (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing is there, it just is. I mean, at the point when you get Max Boot asking [Am I suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome? Time for a self-audit?] in a nationally syndicated essay in  the Washington Post, you have to recognize that whatever it is with Trump,  so many of the rest of us are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, that and Wikipedia ought to have an article defining it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should there also be Bush Derangement Syndrom and Obama Derangement Syndrome articles? Just google those terms and you'll find as many sources as Trump Derangement Syndrome has. I don't think the editors in this AFD realize that [INSERT PRESIDENT] "Derangement Syndrome" is just a general phrase for unfair/thoughtless criticism of a sitting president. The creation of such articles would just be weird forks for Criticism/Protests of President X articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See Bush derangement syndrome.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thatcher Derangement Syndrome redirects to the same section, with a few WP:RS for it there already. Here's another 2013 WP:RS for it, for the sake of discussion: . And here are a few for "Hillary Derangement Syndrome":, , , . The two presidential candidates in 2020, 2024, etc. will probably have the same running joke applied. One alternative to the above merge proposals would be to bring them all together as a section of Polarization (politics), rather than as a section of the George Bush article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -This is recentism bias and fails WP:NEO. The article has more about Bush than Trump. Also, Trump lies more than two-thirds of the time he speaks(via PolitiFact), while telling the complete truth about 5% of the time. If there's a Trump derangement syndrome article, the many analysis done on Trump's derangement should be included. Dave Dial (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. "more about Bush than Trump" and the fact that Trump wouldn't know a fact if it bit him is irrelevant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY, article has been cleaned up and improved. It was a stub that made a crudely worded assertion with a list of sources; it now gives a history and definitions of the term by a number of well-known writers.  There is still lots of room for further improvement, but I have edited a lot of political NEOLOGISMS at AfD and I believe that it now passes WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sourcing in the current version of the article indicates that nearly every major US news organization has written about the subject.  It's notable.  Maybe a case can be made for merging all the Hated Leader Derangement Syndrome articles into one article or for some other editorial option such as merging this one into one of the articles about Donald Trump, but outright deletion is certainly not the right action here.  Peacock (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur that deletion is ineligible. After sleeping on this, I am wondering whether the best course might be to ask Sandstein, closing editor of WP:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination), to give  us access to the text of Bush Derangement Syndrome (6 AfDs, there must have been at least some well written, reliably sourced text in it,) to enable the creation of a new article to which this could be directed and within which  use of this phrase to derogate Bush fils, Thatcher, Obama and Trump wold be covered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.