Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency

First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency

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. Clear WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is a Redundant content fork of at least two other articles. Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump cover the same content. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The media is talking a lot of this first 100 days. For good or bad, it is going to be a historic one with --already-- action to do a border wall and to junk the previous president's flagship legacy accomplishments like Obamacare and the Iran deal. For some presidents, the "first 100 days" is a big deal historically and in terms of outcomes --of changes. Like him or not, this is one of those times. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge a summary of the contents with Presidency of Donald Trump, then redirect this title to Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. There should be nothing special about the first 100 days except symbolism. See also the discussion I just started at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Scope of this article?. — JFG ^talk 08:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency exists AIRcorn (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it exists. No it's not a reason to keep this one, per WP:OSE. Obama's article is also very redundant with his Cabinet nominations, inauguration, policies and timeline. May as well get nuked (but that's a different discussion). Certainly not an example to follow. — JFG ^talk 11:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Don't be biased if you want to get rid of this one also get rid of Obamas.
  • Strong Keep I completely agree with this, if we get rid of one, we get rid of both. Also, please sign your name after your comment. CaptainGummyBearz (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is standard article, we have at least four others, and its very relevant and sourced. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Many respectable sources are analysing just the first week even. NYT; BBC; FT; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep We must remember that the presidency itself has just started, causing that those 3 articles stated have the similarities in content. For short, these three are still developing articles. The time will come that these three will not have the same scope anymore. After 100 days and reelection of Trump, in case he wins in 2020 elections. For the timeline, its just an outlined summary of activities of Trump, even Obama has one. Anyways, sorry for Bad English. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete this should all be in Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:LISTN WereWolf (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per PogingJuan Orser67 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This should exist for every Presidency - as it does for Obama. Overlap in article content is not unusual. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  If you agree with arbitrary and meaningless durations of a tenure, sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  Just because it doesn't have a legislative basis doesn't mean that its meaningless. Its a frequently cited benchmark. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Donald Trump's first 100 days had faced tremendous controversy; Trump had already faced many protests including the 2017 Women's March and the 2017 John F. Kennedy International Airport protest. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  He hasn't been in charge for 100 days. What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  Please WP:AGF on edits from the future. :-) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  I wouldn't assume that the level of controversy is going to die down on day 101. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to the article on the man's presidency. It is WP:TOOSOON for this article as 90% of whatever it might be going to be about hasn't happened yet. I would also discount many of the !votes which do not seem to be offering any kind of logical reason for keeping the article; though that does make them oddly in keeping with the president's utterances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I understand the content fork argument, but in U.S. presidencies, the "first 100 days" is used as a marker, a way to judge the effectiveness of the administration during the "honeymoon period", when the administration should be at the height of its power. The timeline should also cover these days, but in a less detailed way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also FDR In addition to Obama's there is also First 100 days of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency. I'm surprised there's not more as "the first 100 days" does seem to be a notable marker and concept for political leaders. There is also this stub on the concept: First hundred days. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I strongly support keeping First 100, as it is not a redundant content fork as alleged by User:Gfcvoice, who nominated First 100 for deletion. There is no WP:POVFORK or WP:POVSPLIT in First 100 and it is a valid Shortcut:WP:SPINOFF. Currently, there is a "fairly structured" series of articles, each with their own scope and formatting, president-elect, Presidency of Donald Trump,Donald Trump#Presidency, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Presidential transition of Donald Trump, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, a detailed account of his first months in office, List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump, a complete itinerary of his travels abroad, etc. and Political positions of Donald Trump. In these early days, there is no need to rush into deletions and merging of the Timeline and First 100 days, as these can be rectified slowly over time. User:Markbassett provided a useful response to User:JFG's concern (08:20, 29 January 2017) that there was "a lot of redundancy" between the articles. (User:JFG was of the opinion that the article should stay at "overview level and allow easy navigation to the specialist articles. It should not list daily events or news coverage."

  "It's within category US Presidential administrations, so I believe the scope is simply the presidential activity of this president. These are NOT indexing articles to lower pieces, they are presenting the presidential activity. The series is fairly structured and scope seems the formal actions starting from the day of inauguration to last day of office and possibly some retrospective about the period later on. I think the other articles are slightly different in scope or formatting. The timeline is in chronological order. The positions could include things that are not actual actions or events and periods before and after the presidency and may refer to things."

  — User:Markbassett 14:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  There is indeed "something special" about this First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency re: User:JFG. I agree with User:Anastan, that there are other useful First 100 articles, Obama and Roosevelt and with User:Shawn in Montreal that there are not more First 100 in general as "notable" markers. Trump's 100 Days, in particular, reflects WP:LISTN as noted by user:Andrew Davidson and User:WereWolf, as evidenced by the local, national and international media - mass media (mainstream, alternative and social media) and Internet coverage. It is a complex period that is receiving wide, detailed and riveted attention globally and Wikipedia is reflecting that. First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency has a different scope and format from the Timeline. First 100 provides a "detailed account of his first months in office" as noted in the Timeline lede. On the Timeline talk page, User: Buster7 wisely noted that, ["In order to maintain a strict bipartisan nature extreme brevity and conciseness is required in a timeline." The lede in the Timeline article refers to other Wikipedia articles in the interrelated series, including First 100 days as ; for a detailed account of his first months in office, see First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency; for a complete itinerary of his travels abroad, see List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump." First 100 is not a mere timeline, but provides more details with multiple wikilinks to specialist articles on specific Presidential actions, key individuals, and individual agencies, etc, underlining the importance of each issue. I agree with User:Andrew D. that the sources used are "respectable." The references in First 100 are very strong, including references to the Congressional Research Service, for example, and links to full-text actions and interviews, that are not cited in the Timeline or the Presidency articles. First 100 is definitely not Wikipedia:TOOSOON. Results of a basic key word "first 100 days" provides ample evidence of the global significance of these 100 days. According to Wikipedia:TOOSOON guidelines, 100 First fits the "various notability criteria" in that "the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content." Ample sources exist and it is not too soon. On the contrary, it is difficult to choose between an overabundance of articles analysing the First 100, just from the major news sources used by Americans alone, let alone major international media. Without valid forking and the creation of new articles as history unfolds in "verifiable" independent secondary reliable sources, and existing articles become too content-heavy, Wikipedia will not be providing adequate coverage. Thanks User: for the gentle reminder to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We are all volunteers trying to contribute to Wikipedia.

References

Oceanflynn (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps one course of action for editors is to also add referenced content to the stub First hundred days to bolster the case for notability? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to delete this article, there is a similar article for Obama. Ralphw (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep We did the same thing with Obama. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As with Obama and FDR. The first 100 days of a presidency is usually independently notable from the presidency itself. Content from the other articles should be moved to this one as time goes on rather than merging from this one.LM2000 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep – First 100 days are significant in U.S. presidential politics. This is the period where Trump gets to leave his first impression as president. I certainly don't see it as simply a redundant content fork as the nominator puts it. I don't think there is any question as to notability of the topic. Dustin (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The first hundred days of an administration have become a yardstick of presidential success in the US. Trump even has a 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. We already have an abundance of sources specifically addressing Trump's first 100 days.[1][2][3][4][5][6] This article is a valid SPINOFF; it is well-developed and it goes into too much detail to be crammed into the timeline or presidency article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 21:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

*WP:SNOW Not only is this inevitable, it's already widely discussed. Move along, wasting time here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge a summary of the contents with Presidency of Donald Trump. Condidering we are only 9 days into the presidency, this is plainly WP:TOOSOON. In fact, the way things are going the first seven days might be more notable. What if Trump dies, or is impeached etc. before the first 100 days are up?! Per WP:NOT Wikipedia isn't meant to be a day-by-day news report, but a balanced synthesis of whatever has enduring notability. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Muboshgu, CaptainGummyBearz, and Oceanflynn. Plus, this is way too much info for a timeline merge, there are similar articles for FDR and Obama, so if you're going to whack Trump's you need to whack them. No bias. The first 100 days of a US Prez's term has become a benchmark. Love him or hate him, Trump's will one way or another be a very historic presidency. HalfGig talk 01:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Why is the arbitrary number of days 100 significant. Divide it by all means but arbitrary numbers like 100 are similar. Use real divides; for instance First Thatcher ministry. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you are unaware of where the term originated? The first hundred days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration in 1933 were a noted period of change where Roosevelt and his allies in Congress put their agenda into motion -- this term has since been applied to multiple presidents, including former President Obama. Whether the number "100" is arbitrary or not, its significance in new presidents' administrations has lasted to this day. Dustin (talk)
• Keep per First hundred days and similar articles for other U.S. presidents. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. While I personally find the obsession with the concept of a president's first 100 days to be silly, I can't say that there aren't sources that comment on the first 100 days of other presidents, at least post-FDR. However, I believe that the coverage of this topic is heavily influenced by recentism. Take George W. Bush, for example. Wikipedia was established just a few days before he took office and was little-known during Bush's first 100 days, so it's not surprising that First 100 days of George W. Bush's presidency was not created at the time. But during Bush's presidency, Wikipedia grew to have millions of users and over 2 million articles -- but still nobody decided to create First 100 days of George W. Bush's presidency during his term, or afterward. On the other hand, Wikipedia was popular when Barack Obama took office, so First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency was created at the time. Yet nobody decided to take a historical perspective and create such articles for First 100 days of Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidency, First 100 days of John F. Kennedy's presidency, First 100 days of Richard Nixon's presidency, First 100 days of Jimmy Carter's presidency, First 100 days of Ronald Reagan's presidency, First 100 days of George H. W. Bush's presidency, or First 100 days of Bill Clinton's presidency. Why not? Recentism. The first 100 days may seem to be an interesting topic when they are happening, but once they are over many people lose interest. That could explain why a full 4 paragraphs of First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency are devoted to Obama's having to re-take the oath of office due to Chief Justice John Roberts misreading it at the inauguration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Recentism is definitely at play here. We only have three of these articles for our 44 presidents, including the current and most recent. I'd argue though that the answer to that is that we need to create the other 41, or however many when "the first 100 days" became a notable subject. It is something that's studied by historians and talked about significantly in reliable coverage. The New York Times has https://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/ devoted to it. I'm not sure when it began being considered important, though. Ah I see from Dustin above that it was first used with FDR's presidency. Then we should probably have these articles for Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford (if he counted), Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton too. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The concept would be less meaningful as to Truman, LBJ, and Ford, since they came to the presidency suddenly due to the death or resignation of their predecessors. They wouldn't have been able to plan legislative agendas in advance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Good point. Forget about Truman, LBJ, and Ford. This makes reference to JFK's first 100 days. https://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/ references Nixon's. Here's a piece on Reagan's first 100 days, one on George HW Bush, one on Clinton (which also references Ford), and here's one for George W Bush. Also Fivethirtyeight says "A President's First 100 Days Really Do Matter". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I have now created redirects for the other First 100 Days articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (and maintaining my implied view that the article should be deleted) All the discussion about the articles for the first 100 days of Obama's presidency or the first 100 days of FDR's presidency aren't particularly relevant, as discussed in this essay. Furthermore, as other editors noted, Trump has been president for less than 2 weeks, which is well short of 100 days. We don't know for sure that Trump will remain president for 100 days yet - and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is too soon to have an article about the first 100 days of Trump's presidency because he has been in office for less than 2 weeks. Gfcvoice (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Write after 100 days Good point from Gfcvoice. (Then this article should probably contain what outside sources have to say about the first 100 days.) Until then, contribute to Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump If you want to debate/critique the "first 100 days" concept, extend the First hundred days article ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupdidu (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but we do write constantly about events which have not yet completed. We don't wait until after a presidency to start writing about it, for example, and will write about sports events not just during, but even before they start, as in 2020 Summer Olympics, 2028 Summer Olympics, Super Bowl LI, 2018 FIFA World Cup, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep because it meets our policies and guidelines, does not meet WP:DEL-REASON, is sourced, has precedent, is useful and significantly popular, and at 43 kB is an appropriate split from the parent article (Presidency of Donald Trump). It's worth noting that the timeline article is a different sort of article, which is not comparable. The contents could not be merged back there, nor should the title be redirected there. Merging the contents back into Presidency of Donald Trump would bloat that article unnecessarily, particularly as we go further into the 100 days. It may well be, due to the controversial nature of this presidency, that there comes a need to split the article into 25 day sections. The good thing about our guidelines is that we allow for that per WP:SPLIT. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think a split into 25-day sections would be appropriate unless reliable sources use such analysis. There are, unfortunately, sources that talk about the first 100 days of past presidents, but I don't recall seeing sources about "days 51-75" (for example) of past presidential terms. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - The first 100 days is an important part of the presidency, and deserves and in-depth article about it. Ideally, a year from now, the other articles won't be as detailed about this period of time.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW Keep - Per many other reasons given. Jdcomix (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as the relevant info is also contained in Presidency of Donald Trump. After 100 days that article can be condensed as more relevant information is added, and all the details in this article can stay. Jw12321 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• keep —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rationale? Wikipedia is not a vote. Jdcomix (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is the most controversial, significant First 100 Days arguably in American history and people want to delete it? Come on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.251 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a lot of material already, I expect there to be a lot more by the end of the hundred days, and I don't see any strong arguments for deleting it other than a desire to have less material about Donald Trump's presidency. But Wikipedia is not paper, and we often maintain constantly updated articles of unfolding news events. As a matter of fact, one of the most valuable things for me about Wikipedia is the way it tracks unfolding news events when the regular press is spotty or stops following up. There is no particular harm in this article that I can see. If, after a hundred days or a year or four are up, there's a consensus that this material seems to have faded into importance and to have a disproportionate amount of detail, it can always be cut down and merged back in at that time. There's no need to do it now. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems like there's a debate between this article and the Obama's one. FYI, the article was userfy-ed and later got overturned. NgYShung ^huh? 05:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Trump highlights his plans for the first 100 days in this video. I also found out that the news also covers about first hundred days of President Obama. (For example: First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency#External links) The article also meets the policies and guidelines so I don't think there is a problem of it. NgYShung ^huh? 05:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is already so much important information in this article, and it is only the first week. Love him or hate him, we have to chronicle this 100 days for historical purposes. This is already a vitally important article and it will only grow more important. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG, plain and simple. Many sources out there explicitly address the events (both those that have taken place and those that are yet to happen) within the "first 100 days" framework. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep For many reasons already stated. Calibrador (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not WP:TOOSOON, as so much has happened that the event is notable. We didn't wait to create Super Bowl LI until after the event was completed. As soon as a topic is notable, an article is appropriate, and this topic is clearly notable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Can someone close this already? Comments lean overwhelmingly for keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's only been going for two days, but I do think we may be moving to WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Even if this is worth deleting, wait until those days are up to judge of how forky is it. Or start with Obama's then come to this one. Nergaal (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep See First hundred daysMr.User200 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -Xbony2 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 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.