Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump effect on school bullying


 * 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 delete. Although I was critical of several "delete" opinions at the time of my relisting, see my comments of 31 July 2017 below, the balance of opinions now indicates that what we have here in terms of sources is WP:ROUTINE press coverage of one of the many minutiae of American presidential politics, which does not in and of itself warrant a separate article. This also applies to the more recently added Trump effect, which is a sort of disambiguation between the supposed bullying and market effects, but the same arguments apply to that article also.  Sandstein  07:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump effect on school bullying
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This so-called "Trump effect" on school bullying was part of campaign spin, and never attested by any other study than the SPLC's admittedly anecdotal evidence. Ephemeral notability + attack page = Delete. — JFG talk 01:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Note that this is the second nomination for an article called "Trump effect" but this Trump effect is a different Trump effect. Discussions on the talk page link to multiple articles using "Trump effect" to describe a number of different things but I don't think any of them are particularly notable. This "effect" was a bit of mudslinging that happened at the height of the election but has no long term significance. WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT apply.LM2000 (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per LM2000. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I support Rhododendrites's suggestion below as a consensus opinion. I'm not convinced the SPLC report is notable, but there's no case to delete an article on that written work, which this article basically is currently. As a general term, I still support deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Yup, just another anti-Trump hit piece not suited for this encyclopedia. Beatitudinem (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete with optional partial merge to other articles about Trump. I might buy this as an effect of Trump and his gang but not as a single coherent phenomena called the Trump effect, which is what we would need to justify an article of this name. It is no new revelation that elevating big bullies normalises their prejudice and thuggery which makes all the little bullies feel empowered to be more open in their own bullying. We see this throughout history and we see it in many (far too many) contemporary regimes that have thugs for leaders. This is yet another thing that Trump did not invent. So that kills off the name. Is there any argument for just renaming the article? Possibly, but I can't see what that name would be and it would remain a very weak article, which is why we are having this AfD. I'm not deep into the Trump articles, frankly because it is depressing, but I'm sure that we must have something that already covers race relations and social cohesion under Trump? If so, a partial merge there would be a possibility. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Beatitudinem. Whether we like Trump or not, we aren't a political action group. Lepricavark (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What matters for whether we delete or keep is whether this is notable or not. So "we aren't a political action group" is actually a reason NOT to delete based on personal opinion of Trum as Beatitudinem is doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename/Rework to be about Trump Effect, the SPLC publication on which this lowercase "effect" is based. I agree that having an article about the "effect" is inappropriate, and would require much more than the SPLC publication and media coverage of that publication. However, that publication itself easily satisfies WP:GNG. Framed as such, it doesn't purport an "effect" but puts forward what the SPLC calls an effect. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is clearly the only possible way that this could stand a chance of being kept but I don't think it flies. If this was a published book then it might be OK but it is just a 16 page report and the SPLC produces a lot of reports, many of which also get some RS coverage. We don't have articles about them all any more than we have articles on individual academic papers. So, I don't see any problem for it (or CNN's coverage of it) to be used as a source (and our alternative facts touting friend below can safely be ignored on this) but I really don't see it as a subject in its own right. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I was googling things randomly and I came across this. I rarely edit this site but I read at least 20 articles a day.  I don't mind if it's recreated but as it is it looks like it was written by CNN, The New York Times or Washington Post.  And the article even uses CNN as a source.  Wikipedia banned The Daily Mail which has far more accuracy than CNN.  CNN has been proven fake news and caught on camera admitting it   .  Also the radical Communist terrorist and hate group, SPLC, is described in glowingly positive terms like "non-profit Southern Poverty Law Center".  This article also largely uses the SPLC as a source.  The SPLC is basically Antifa but they use more barratry and libel more than direct violence but there was the #SPLCShooting.  The article starts off with some bullshit claim about "school bullying".  The real Trump effect is people have more freedom of speech in the USA against political correctness and there's a huge boost in nationalism and the economy.  Before Trump, a lot of people thought the USA was doomed. The entire articles is 100% a hit piece against Donald Trump.  There is not one positive thing there.  Stoodpointt (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per JFG and LM2000. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to something like Harassment post–2016 United States general elections, or maybe Harassment after the conclusion of the 2016 US elections or something like that. In any case, I oppose the status quo and object to flat out deletion.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - widely covered in reliable sources so notable. Whether you like Trump or not is neither here nor there. Open to renaming it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To add, this *should* in fact be renamed since there are several things which have been referred to as "Trump effect".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Move/Merge 'Trump Effect' has been used for way too many different things, and though this does have a fair few sources I think it'd be best off with a more specific title or as a section in something else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true, most of the "Trump effect" articles that I've come across highlight positive things such as economic growth, not nieche articles that try to slander and make Trump look bad, which certain Wikipedia users seem most keen on. Beatitudinem (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. In addition, WP has become a magnet for anti-Trump astroturfing.  This unencyclopedic garbage needsto stop.  e.g. including this AfD in the "crime-related" deletion discussions.  It's just more mud slinging hoping something will stick.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would assume that the addition to the crime discussions was done because some of the harassment inspired could be criminal, not an attempt to say that Trump was himself criminal in this particular respect. Obviously I can't know what other people's intentions are but I don't see this as astroturfing at all. I think we need to Assume Good Faith here. It was most likely a legitimate attempt to encourage a broad range of opinions in this discussion that perhaps went a little too far.
 * I think you are on strong ground complaining that this is unencyclopaedic but much less so to call it garbage. If we try to forget that this is specifically about Trump and the SPLC, and imagine that it is about some other controversial leader of a large country being reported on by some other widely respected Human Rights organisation but hold on to the facts that it is a 16 page report covering incidents over a short period, and that it received some good RS media coverage but never made headline news, then I think the answer becomes obvious.
 * This is a very small but relevant part of the overall narrative around Trump. It does not deserve its own article but nor should it be censored completely as a non-notable hit piece either. This subject reminds me of a lot of deleted articles about individual pro-wrestling events, in that these are events that can legitimately be mentioned in relevant articles about pro-wrestling but do not deserve articles of their own. If only this were just another harmless piece of the scripted reality that is pro-wrestling... --DanielRigal (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Selective Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Even discounting admittedly politically motivated biased comments, it's clear from this discussion that this is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, which I agree. However, since it has been reported on quite a bit, it should definitely be mentioned in the article about the campaign (unsure just where exactly, probably in a new section) per WP:ATD-M. Regards  So Why  07:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting admin's notice: On the face of it we have a majority of opinions requesting deletion, but we also need to weigh the strength of the arguments made in light of Wikipedia policy. The core policy issue here is whether this supposed "Trump effect" has been covered sufficiently by reliable sources to make it notable as described in WP:GNG, or whether this is just a relatively ephemeral news story which we don't aim to cover as a separate article per WP:NOTNEWS. What we do not consider, per WP:NPOV, are the partisan politics of the issue, i.e., whether the media (or Wikipedia) coverage of it is to the benefit or detriment of Donald Trump or other political actors. In view of this, I must discount the "delete" opinions by Beatitudinem, Lepricavark and Stoodpointt (added: and DHeyward), because they merely object to the article for portraying Trump in a negative light. I must also give little weight to the "delete" opinions by PackMecEng and Power~enwiki because they are of the form "per X", without formulating arguments of their own. What remains are several opinions that make plausible arguments for either retaining, merging or deleting the article, but without a clear consensus emerging. I therefore ask editors to comment on whether merging some of this content somewhere might be acceptable as a possible compromise solution.  Sandstein   07:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I expanded on my comment once it was clear this would be controversial. I do still feel that "This "effect" was a bit of mudslinging that happened at the height of the election but has no long term significance." is an accurate summation of my position. Various people appear to be trying to add new topics to this article; I'm not opposed to making it about a specific book but dislike the other proposals. Power~enwiki (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 would seem like a sensible place to merge but that article is already way too full. Given that the most exposure this got was when Clinton mentioned it during the second debate, I'd merging it to United States presidential debates, 2016.LM2000 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge, but rename to something more specific, like "School bullying Trump effect". This is not about just a single report, but about an alleged phenomenon described in the report. The SPLC has published several updates to the report. I've edited the article to reference such an update, from December 16, 2016, which states that it is the fourth such update. On the other hand, there are numerous alleged Trump effects, and the title should distinguish this one from the others. I've also added a reference to scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal that expands on the implications of (this particular) alleged Trump effect. That article, in turn, is part of a special issue of the journal, specifically on "Public Education in the Age of Trump". Scholarly interest in the SPLC's alleged findings should surprise no one familiar with the history of scholarship on fascism and violence. The SPLC is contributing to a decades-long conversation; charges of ephemerality are completely off base. It's puzzling why anyone would think the present Wikipedia article was an anti-Trump hit piece. Its opening section on the SPLC report is so critical as to verge on an attempt at debunking the alleged effect. But the notability and interest of the alleged effect is in no way dependent on its validity. —Syrenka V (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that if, and only if, there were sufficient sources for it. We need to see a bit more than the SPLC following up on it or other people citing them. We need to see other bodies, with the same or preferably greater level of reliability and impact, doing their own research that corroborates this and takes it further. Your additional sources help a little but, on their own, I can't see them justifying a stand-alone article yet. I still think a limited merge is the best option. Of course, it is possible (in fact, it is something I fear is quite likely) that this will be seen as the start of something bigger and more pervasive than just a period of bullying in the election campaign but it is not for us to prejudge the future historical consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As WP:N makes clear, notability does not require any corroboration of the content of a claim, only documentation of interest in, and coverage of, the claim from reliable sources. Reliable sources debunking the claim would establish notability just as effectively as reliable sources corroborating it, or commenting on it in ways that neither establish nor refute it. Astrology is just as notable as astronomy. As to "not for us to prejudge": WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply to predictions of the level of future interest in a topic from reliable sources. For example, WP:SUSTAINED within WP:N explicitly bases notability decisions on what is "likely" in the future. WP:CRYSTALBALL is only advising us to avoid creating articles on events whose very existence or factual characteristics are a matter of speculation. —Syrenka V (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and: the Murphy article I added does a great deal more than "citing" the SPLC report, or its December 16, 2016 update. It makes the SPLC reports the centerpiece of a broader discussion, whether or not (in anyone's judgment) it thereby "corroborates" them. —Syrenka V (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just now added a citation to a June 2017 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, entitled "Health effects of dramatic societal events — ramifications of the recent presidential election". Like the Murphy article, this NEJM article does a great deal more than parenthetically cite the SPLC report. The NEJM article places the SPLC report in the context of prior research on the effects of public policy on health. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Against merging: this alleged effect of the Trump campaign on school bullying, like any hotly debated alleged effect of a particularly colorful presidential campaign, is likely to continue to generate specifically focused interest long after the fact, even if it is eventually debunked. Check out Swiftboating for an example. This specific focus on the effect of the Trump campaign on school bullying will not be undermined, but strengthened, by more general scholarly work placing it in the context of, for example, general health effects of public policy. The more scholarly work is done on that general phenomenon, the more intensively the best-known alleged examples of it will be subjected to detailed retrospective scrutiny. Instead of merging, we should be looking to create additional, separate pages like Health effects of public policy, Effects of public policy on hate crimes, and Effects of presidential campaigns on hate crimes, at varying levels of generality. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect with selective merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.  This is a classic case of WP:ROUTINE that fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA : "Routine kinds of news events (including most... political news." The SPLC, a political organization opposed to Republicans and outraged by Trump, published an informal, non-scholarly survey that got a single round of news coverage.   Almost no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE; the SPLC's revisiting of the story by releasing a  survey "update" in December did not inspire a new round of coverage.   The promising-looking citations to later coverage    First: Murphy, Jason P. (Winter 2017). "Defending “all this diversity garbage”: multidimensional coalition-building in the age of Trump". Mid-Atlantic Education Review. 5 (1): 12–18.  which turns out to be a opinion essay, sort of an op-ed with footnotes, in a  non-notable.  and Second, this: "The presidential candidacy of Donald Trump appeared to bring further to the surface preexisting hostile attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. In a national (nonrepresentative) survey of 2000 elementary and high school (K–12) teachers, more than half of respondents said that since the 2016 presidential campaign began, many of their students had been “emboldened” to use slurs and name calling and to say bigoted and hostile things about minorities, immigrants, and Muslims." in an article inthe New England Journal of Medicine.  I believe this to be a good summary of why this topic is non-notable.  This was not a solid piece of survey or of social science research research, the sort of thing that can be impactful as an actual gauge of popular impact or sentiment. It was "nonrepresentative," more or less the same sort of seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy that the whole country has engaged in since Trump began to surge in January 2016. But not a notable one.  Just another Trump-related meme to delete or merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh, I got so carried away analyzing the impact of the "nonrepresentative" SPLC surveythat I forgot the main point, which is that "Trump effect" is used for all sorts of things, of which this is by no means the most significant. So we just delete, not redirect. Although if someone wants to boil this down to a couple of sentences and add it to the campaign article or the SPLC article, that could work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Gregory's argument simply ignores the points I made above.
 * First, both the Murphy article and the NEJM set this alleged Trump effect in the context of other evidence and of historical patterns; neither its significance nor its plausibility rest solely on the evidence of the SPLC report, and it is part of a long-standing line of inquiry. Gregory caricatures their content. The articles themselves are linked above.
 * Second, neither the interest nor (in Wikipedia's technical sense) the notability of a theoretical claim depends upon the strength of the evidence for its truth; what is needed is evidence of continued interest, particularly context-setting scholarly interest, in the claim.
 * Third, this alleged Trump effect continues to be covered vigorously in the popular press, and Gregory's "did not inspire a new round of coverage" is blatantly false. Here is an example from Rolling Stone, March 23rd, 2017, and another from Psychology Today, March 30, 2017, and another from U.S. News & World Report from July 7, 2017, and another from CNET from July 11, 2017. Google searches with time restrictions will turn up yet more examples of recent continued coverage; they are not hard to find. In my earlier remarks I focused on scholarly interest and context-setting, but there is a plethora of enduring interest from the popular press as well. (Which of the popular news stories should be added to the article itself is another question.)
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's yet another example, from the BBC on November 29, 2016, specifically reporting on the SPLC's post-election updates as well as the original SPLC report.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article is for a well soured, notable topic per WP:GNG. The Delete votes contend the Trump effect isn't real just political, but this contradicts the sources. Rather than delete, provide sources to back up their contentions, and add to the article so it is more balanced. Clearly "trump effect" is in currency and it would be strange, indeed biased, for Wikipedia not to have coverage. The article can cover multiple meanings and uses of Trump effect -- it's also commonly applied to immigrants. -- Green  C  02:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But I've also seen it used in connection with the stock market. This is basically an amorphous catch-phrase that will do nothing but generate a coatrack collection of vaguely related phenomena. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it's all "trump" it's not unrelated. "Coat rack" means something else. The article would not be nominally about one thing while actually discussing another thing. It would concern multiple senses and meanings of a term, with appropriate WEIGHT, there are many examples on Wikipedia. -- Green  C  14:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – In light of 's relisting and other editors' comments, I wish to re-affirm my nomination for deletion. In addition to this "effect" being anecdotal at best (as confirmed by all sources), it would be undue weight to keep a full article about it. Other things have been loosely called "Trump effect", both supportive and dismissive of Trump (stock market, immigration, job market, foreign policy, Congress, media, etc.); none of those are notable enough for an article about the term "Trump effect" to make sense. — JFG talk 10:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is little in WP:NPOV to support page deletion, except in the case of POV forks where another page on the same topic already exists — and much to support the creation of new pages by content forking. WP:NPOV is almost entirely concerned with keeping coverage within each page proportionate to the range of views represented in reliable sources. It is not clear to me that anything in WP:UNDUE or any other section of WP:NPOV could ever justify the deletion of any page on a notable topic without prior existence or subsequent creation of a replacement page on the same topic, nor that the mere existence of a separate page for a notable topic could ever constitute undue weight.
 * Even WP:ATTACK, which does mandate deletion of attack pages, is careful to note that:
 * If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place [emphasis added].
 * So if the topic is notable, even the most blatant attack page should be deleted only to remove its scurrilous history; the page should then be re-created so that NPOV material can continue to be written about its topic. Such a procedure is quite different from the usual deletion without replacement. And even deletion with replacement should only be done if there is no NPOV version to revert to.
 * If there is no case for page deletion (without a replacement, that is) on the basis of WP:NOT, WP:V, and derivatives of the latter like WP:RS and WP:N, then I don't see that WP:NPOV adds anything. Quite the contrary: WP:NPOV offers creation of a ancillary article entirely on a fringe viewpoint as an acceptable solution to its presence with undue weight in a more general article.
 * On proportionality within the present article: WP:NPOV dictates that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." This is exactly what the present article does. If there were high-quality published research using probability sampling that refuted the existence of the alleged Trump effect on school bullying, it would need to be included in the article, with greater weight than the SPLC's work based on Nonprobability sampling. Even then, it would not be appropriate to delete the article; in fact, such research refuting the claim would provide further support for its notability. But to my knowledge no such published refutation exists. What does exist is published critique of the methodology of the SPLC study, which is, quite appropriately, given prominent coverage in the present page. Deletion of the present page would actually be a violation of WP:NPOV itself: it would amount to engaging in the dispute that the page merely describes, by taking the side of the SPLC's critics who deny the significance of its work.
 * Finally, I see no basis whatsoever for JFG's denial that other Trump effects (besides the present one on school bullying) lack the notability to justify separate Wikipedia pages. Quite the contrary, when I was searching for articles on "Trump effect" in Google, I had to add "SPLC" as an additional search term to weed out published reports on other types of Trump effects. Each and every specific Trump effect with ongoing coverage in reliable sources, especially scholarly sources that are predictive of continued research, should have its own Wikipedia page, though none of those pages should be named simply "Trump effect". This one should be renamed to something like "Trump effect on school bullying", and any others that are created should have similarly specific and descriptive names. For just "Trump effect" to be appropriate as an article title, the article's topic would need to be some kind of nontrivial commonality among the various specific Trump effects — and reliable sources would need to be found for such a commonality, or for ongoing disputes about it. That would be more feasible after a number of articles on specific Trump effects had already been created.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in my deletion rationale did I invoke an NPOV violation. The SPLC report is clearly a politically-charged accusation, however Wikipedia's mentioning the study with proper attribution, and well-sourced counter-arguments if any, conforms to our NPOV pillar policy.
 * To your more substantive argument, if WP:RS can be discovered treating "Trump effect" as an umbrella term encompassing various perceived changes in American society as a result of his candidacy and his presidency, then we should write an article about it. Until such sources exist, such an article would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The present article should be evaluated on its own merits, not on what an hypothetical future article about other subjects could be. — JFG talk 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was addressing your reaffirmation in response to relisting, where your principal point was an allegation of undue weight. Any such allegation is a direct invocation of WP:NPOV. As I noted, WP:UNDUE is a section within WP:NPOV; it is not a separate document. And the text of WP:UNDUE makes it clear that undue weight is simply a special case of non-neutrality.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Perhaps this is an original essay attempting to amplify a catch phrase in a SPLC report that attempted to garner outside media notice, perhaps it is an imprecise POV titling problem for a real sociological effect that is the subject of multiple independent studies. Certainly either the title needs to change or the article needs to go. Is there a comparable phenomenon in Duterte's Philippines being explored? How about Mussolini's or Burlesconi's Italy? Putin's Russia? A coarsening of dialog and an accentuation of sociopathic behavior under blustering or thuggish national leaderships isn't just a school thing, nor is it just a Donald Trump thing. But it is a thing. So that's my challenge to you — figure out the valid merge target or the new title and tone that will make this topic encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing for sure, the close of the first AfD debate, ending in a redirect to Mode effect, isn't even close to the right solution. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a completely different article that time, nothing to do with this SPLC report. The redirect to Mode Effect was plausibly correct and deletion was the only other sensible alternative given what was being alleged in the article that time. If there is something new called the Trump Effect that overrides that decision then fair enough. I'm just not convinced that the subject this time cuts it either. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment on the scientific status of the research on the alleged Trump effect: E.M. Gregory's "seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy" and JFG's "anecdotal at best" are fallacious inferences from the use of Nonprobability sampling, which is all that "nonrepresentative" can reasonably be taken to mean in this context. Nonprobability sampling does not render a single study utterly worthless, but it does accentuate the importance of context-setting and fitting the study into the context of ongoing research, which is what the Murphy article and the NEJM article attempt to do; for this reason, JFG's belief that the dismissal of the value of the original SPLC is "confirmed by all sources" involves a fundamental misunderstanding of those sources, both scholarly and popular. Although Gregory does not phrase it exactly the same way, Gregory's remarks reveal the same misunderstanding. Let me quote the opening paragraph of the NEJM article:
 * A small but growing body of evidence suggests that election campaigns can have both positive and negative effects on health. Campaigns that give voice to the disenfranchised have been shown to have positive but short-term effects on health.
 * The interest of the NEJM article in the SPLC work is that forms one part of that "growing body of evidence".
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment on the Mid-Atlantic Education Review as a source: E.M. Gregory dismisses this source as "non-notable". In the first place, nothing in WP:V or WP:RS or WP:N requires a reliable source to be notable itself. (Even where the source is notable, whether that supports its reliability depends on why it is notable; the National Enquirer is notable but not reliable.) But in judging the status of the Mid-Atlantic Education Review, one should be aware that it is published and sponsored by the Rutgers Graduate School of Education, which in turn is part of Rutgers University. The journal's About page, peer review and editorial policy page, and home page (which currently shows the Special Issue on Public Education in the Age of Trump), are easy to find. The page for the journal on Rutgers's own website was a little harder to locate, but it definitely exists, and it states that:
 * The Mid-Atlantic Education Review was created through a Goal Advancement Project grant from the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
 * The journal itself is relatively new, but Rutgers has been around since 1766, and the Graduate School of Education has been around since 1923.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no actual so-called "Trump effect" that has been legitimately studied/analyzed by reliable sources. It is a WP:NOTNEWS story that was written about during the height of the presidential election; it also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING. The WP:ROUTINE coverage does little to convince me a selective merge is required.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think there is a good merge target out there. This is ultimately a polemical piece rather than analysis of a broad concept that is studied in the literature of academic sociology. Carrite (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite or possibly make a disambig. page The expression seems to be widely used and notable (hence "keep"), but it was used for a couple of different tmeanings . Using same expression or a word for different things is not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the last point. In fact, it's straight from the WP:RELART section of WP:CFORK:
 * Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term.
 * The article doesn't need to be rewritten from scratch, just renamed to "Trump effect on school bullying", and improved incrementally like any other page. After renaming, the name "Trump effect" can be made into a disambiguation page if any articles about other types of Trump effects exist, until and unless it can be rewritten as a reliably sourced, non-WP:SYNTH, substantive article about the commonalities among the various Trump effects.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment on the pervasive role of neutrality issues in arguments for and against deletion:
 * Undue weight has been alleged by original nominator JFG in his reaffirmation above. Contrary to his later assertion, that allegation is a direct invocation of WP:NPOV, of which WP:UNDUE is a section. But that reaffirmation is by no means the only inappropriate appeal to WP:NPOV in the above arguments for deletion, merely the most direct and blatant one. Likewise, I have argued briefly above that WP:NPOV, far from justifying deletion, actually provides compelling arguments for a keep.
 * JFG's summary of his case in his original AfD nomination was:
 * Ephemeral notability + attack page = Delete.
 * Although WP:ATTACK, unlike WP:UNDUE, is a separate guideline rather than a section within WP:NPOV, non-neutral bias against the target is an essential part of what defines an attack page, as WP:ATTACK makes clear. But in the section "Negative spinout articles" (which I have boldly linked as the shortcut WP:NEGATIVESPIN, though there may be technical problems with the shortcut—I am not familiar with the creation of shortcuts), WP:ATTACK makes it equally clear that negative implications for a page's subject, though necessary to classify it as an attack page, are not sufficient:
 * When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject.
 * The page under discussion is not to my knowledge an actual spinout, but prospective merging targets have been rejected on the ground that they are too large already, so much the same consideration applies. As I've already argued above, the present page is not biased; it accurately and proportionately reflects coverage of the topic in reliable sources, scholarly and otherwise.
 * Even the charge of ephemerality, which in its bare statement does not appeal even indirectly to WP:NPOV, has, in the subsequent discussion, become thoroughly entwined with non-neutrality arguments, because they have been misused to discredit the available sources as unreliable. E.M. Gregory dismisses the scholarly coverage in the Mid-Atlantic Education Review (MAER) as an "opinion essay, sort of an op-ed with footnotes", and—on the basis of the NEJM article—dismisses the SPLC study itself as "more or less the same sort of seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy that the whole country has engaged in since Trump began to surge in January 2016". But reliable sources do not become less reliable when they express opinions of their own. Both the MAER and NEJM articles are clear and candid about the nature of the evidence provided by the SPLC; nevertheless, they draw conclusions from it, together with other scholarship that they cite, to guide their projects (educational policymaking, and healthcare provider response to potential adverse political effects on public health, respectively). The NEJM article even acknowledges candidly that the SPLC sample was "nonrepresentative" in the technical sense that it was a Nonprobability sample; nevertheless, the authors' professional opinion is clearly that, in historical and scientific context, the SPLC's work should be treated quite differently from "seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy".
 * Here a point from WP:NPOV that I quoted above becomes relevant once more: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." Reliable sources need to be reliable as to the nature of the dispute itself, which both the MAER and the NEJM are, as well as popular news sources like the BBC and CNET. They do not need to be unbiased themselves, nor do they need to prove or "corroborate" the conclusions for which they argue by indisputable, high-quality scientific evidence, in order to be reliable as sources on the state of the dispute.
 * WP:NPOV actually supports a conclusion of "keep" rather than "delete" for the page under consideration, as it does for WP:NEGATIVESPIN pages in general. There is an asymmetry between keeping and deletion in terms of their effects on neutrality. If a WP:NEGATIVESPIN page is kept, any amount of presently known or subsequently discovered evidence against the alleged phenomenon in question can simply be included in the page. For the present page, methodological critique of the SPLC work is already prominently included. If the supposed Trump effect on school bullying is ever refuted by high-quality research based on probability sampling, so that its nonexistence becomes a matter of scientific fact, that conclusion can simply be recorded in its page. Likewise, if the effect is established by subsequent high-quality research, the page can be updated to describe its topic as a fact rather than a dispute. But if the page is deleted, the arguments not only for the final conclusion, but for the significance of the dispute itself, are effectively censored, in that only more general pages (like that on the Trump campaign of 2016) can be used, and they have severe space limitations. Deletion of this page would amount effectively to endorsement of opinions like those expressed by E.M. Gregory, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * WP:NPOV is a core and non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, which takes priority over consensus. For that reason, the page here under consideration should not merely be kept; if no better arguments for deletion than the above litany of misuses of WP:NPOV can be found, it should (after renaming to a more specific title) be kept with prejudice, in a way that removes it from the AfD process. In effect, what should be done is the reverse of salting the earth; something that does for "keep" what WP:SALT does for "delete". If no such procedure exists, one should be created.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you have expressed your opinion and listed policy after policy on this AfD several times but have you heard of WP:BLUDGEON? You have stated your view on the article; now let other editors do the same without being obstructed by walls of text most people will not read.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Unchanged revisiting and sticking with delete on the I grounds laid out above, the that the SPLC's assertion has not received scholarly validation, nor has it gotten sufficient coverage as an article or an idea to pass WP:GNG. If someone were to gather up the several Trump effects that have been proposed by sundry pundits and journalists into a single article, that might be notable.  But at this point we do seem to have something of a consensus that there is no appropriate target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also unchanged. Arguments that the SPLC's report is just part of a larger story on political movements and their effects on children aren't doing it for me. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF, their report is still not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - since almost no one seems to like the original name of the article I've went ahead and moved it to Trump effect on school bullying. That way people can focus on the article itself rather than the naming issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have converted the mainpage called Trump effect. I had an edit conflict. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Update on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: I've edited the article under consideration to include a fifth update by SPLC from February 10, 2017, which announces the SPLC's new collaboration with investigative journalism website ProPublica, as well as a report from two ProPublica journalists from November 15, 2016, expressing agreement with the post-election SPLC reports as a matter of opinion, but lamenting the difficulty in finding data for rigorous, quantitative evaluation of such reports. I've also cited ProPublica's own page on the collaboration, known as Documenting Hate, which references the SPLC's work in explaining the motivation for the collaboration. ProPublica also cites numerous other participants in the collaboration (currently 92!), including four schools of journalism, one school of law, and numerous major news organizations.
 * The Documenting Hate collaboration deserves a page of its own, which is why I've redlinked it. There is an enormous amount of news coverage in reliable sources, though "independent of its subject" may be a problem, for the simple reason that news organizations that publish stories about the project almost always seem to join it! This from the New York Times on January 17, 2017, which also specifically refers to the SPLC's work as a motivation for the project, is typical. The New York Times also continues to publish stories that follow up both on the original SPLC work and on the Documenting Hate collaboration, like this from June 1, 2017.
 * In view of continuing coverage not only in individual new stories (such as I had already documented several days ago, and have further documented here), but also in an entire massive project involving collaboration among over 90 organizations, I ask the closing admin to discount all deletion arguments based on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTNEWS, and similar.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been renamed to Trump effect on school bullying because the article is about a report on schoolyard bullying. The sources you've provided are about hate crimes in general, not school bullying. You cannot drop a couple of primary sources and one op-ed about a different subject and then argue all deletion votes should be discounted. This article has a very specific scope, some keep votes are broadening the scope to include WP:OTHERSTUFF to argue notability. Also, see WP:BLUDGEON.LM2000 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:N or any other relevant guideline says that continued coverage has to be limited to the specific topic under consideration. Of course many of the considerations involved in bias-related school bullying, such as the difficulty in finding reliable data, apply to hate crimes in general, which is why the SPLC report has led directly to a wider project on hate crime documentation—and why the SPLC report continues to be cited, and detailed information specifically about school bullying continues to be enumerated, in news stories about hate crimes in general, like the one from the New York Times on June 1, 2017, which I cited above. Even in cases where there is no such detailed enumeration, use of information from the SPLC report to support a point about hate crimes in general amounts to use of school bullying as an example to support a generalization about the wider topic.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF (which in any case is not authoritative) isn't even relevant to cases of a topic being covered within a story about a wider topic. It's about analogizing arguments of the form "We have a page on X, so we have to allow a page on Y" (or "We deleted the page about X, so we have to delete the page about Y").
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Trump effect on school bullying" is a topic that may fall within the scope of many other wider topics, such as a rise in hate crimes, but independent notability has to be established. Many of the (mostly WP:PRIMARY) sources you've provided don't even explicitly mention the alleged trend. It's a novel interpretation of WP:SIGCOV to suggest that one subject is notable because it's related to one which receives significant coverage. Actually, that's the definition of WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 7.  —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I  <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, wow!, article word count around 950 words and 5mins to read, afd around 7600 words and 40mins to read. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Cllgbksr (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

*''Note: I have added the newly created disambiguation article Trump effect above. !votes prior to this point may only apply to the main article, whatever it is called these days.'' --DanielRigal (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already !voted delete on the main article so this is just to say Delete the unnecessary disambiguation page too. A disambiguation page with only one linked article entry is clearly invalid. Soon it will probably have zero linked article entries. I see little chance that it will ever have more than one, if that. If we ever do have two articles about actual notable things called "Trump effect" then it can legitimately be recreated then. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both – The overview article is useless until there's actually something to disambiguate or write about. Plus, it was created out of process in the middle of the AfD. Trout ready. — JFG talk 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Recent stories on the trump effect: Multiple definitions of a so-called “Trump Effect” have emerged over the past 18 months or so, attributed to everything from stock-market gains to reports of increases in bullying and incidents of racial and religious-based hate crimes. The Atlantic published today  and HR and leadership experts say a “Trump effect” has made a new norm of bad behavior, from dropping f-bombs to fudging details on resumes to spreading false rumors about co-workers, all of which stifles teamwork, dampens morale, and hurts productivity. NBC published today - there has been plenty published over the last year linking Trump and his campaign and the way the actions been covered with changes in people's behavior to support some type of article, but I think linking the name "Trump Effect" specifically to bullying in school is not appropriate yet as a reflection of the term being consolidated into a specific area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2017 (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.