Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumponomics


 * 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. This does not prevent discussions about whether to create a separate article about Trump's economic policies.  Sandstein  11:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Trumponomics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I hope I'm doing this right (first time that I've called for an article deletion): The problems with this articles are: (i) It is basically a personal essay at this point; (ii) It is incredibly incomplete; (iii) Much of the limited content in the article that has been included to the article is misleading, inaccurate and poorly sourced (again, it reads like a personal essay); (iv) Trumponomics does not refer to a comprehensive or clear set of economic policies. It's just a portmanteau that journalists have used to speculate on Trump's economic positions; and (v) All of Trump's stated economic positions are already on his 'Political Positions' article, along with commentary from reliable sources and experts. If there needs to be a specific article 'Economic Policy of Donald Trump', it just should just duplicate the content that already exists on his 'Political Positions' article. Over at the Political Positions article, there is in fact a discussion to split the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace with  assuming they decide to split off the contents. Trumponomics gets 118K hits on Gnews with coverage that meets notability guidelines. There are issues with the contents of the article but that should be addressed through proper editing, the previous link certainly seems like it would make a good article as-is. (Alternatively if that section of the existing article is broken out into an article called Economic positions of Donald Trump then we should redirect from Trumponomics.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would recommend Merging with summarized parts of  as opposed to replacing (see below) --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See also the related Articles for deletion/Trexit, created by a different editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "Trumponomics" certainly seems more noteworthy than "Trexit." Dustin  ( talk ) 21:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, or redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump (or a future economic policy of Donald Trump, if consensus emerges for it). Neutralitytalk 22:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep & edit/expand (e.g. using some summarized elements from Political positions of Donald Trump) as (1) ‘Trumponomics’ and ‘Economic Positions/Policies of Donald Trump’ are not one and the same (see EPs of Reagan vs Reaganomics, EPs of Bill Clinton vs Clintonomics etc.) = that kind of ‘portmanteau’ word is of course, by definition, more ideologically connotated (not ‘pure econ. policy’), (2) Snooganssnoogans is wrong: this is essentially about LEXICOLOGY not value judgement (‘Trump’s policies are vague and contradictory …etc.’ perhaps, but that’s not the issue), (3) the term wasn’t coined by ‘some Republican journalists’ (?? which in itself isn’t a fault) but by Prof. Jay Whitehead, a leading management and corporate governance theoretician, and (4) the term is real and very much in use cf. notability as measured by e.g. Gnews 50 to 1,000 times more than say Bushonomics or Trexit --B.Andersohn (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is term/article of course 'work in progress' as the new administration hasn't been fully formed => not like defining 'Reaganomics' in say 1983/84. A certain degree of "vagueness" is therefore perfectly normal here (I'm not saying it's "good" or that Trump is "right" etc.), but, as for WP standards, ‘Trumponomics’ clearly deserves an article of its own, distinct from ‘Donald Trump’s Economic Positions/Policies’. Now I agree the article needs to be developed a little (probably the reason why it looks "infrastructure-centric") => we should add (at least) one more distinct section = ‘Fiscal Policy & Taxation’ --B.Andersohn (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete can be recreated if needed later, but this term does not seem to meet WP:GNG aside from the NPOV issues. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete We will surely see plenty of coverage of Trump's economic policies, once he has some. But there is not enough substance to support this neologism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2016 (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.