Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumpisms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The "delete" opinions are more persuasive. They note that while the peculiar pronouncements of Donald Trump certainly have received ample coverage, the difference between this article and Bushism and Bidenisms is that the latter consist of encyclopedic discussion of these presidents' linguistic foibles, whereas the present article is merely a collection of quotations, which fails WP:NOT. This argument is not substantively addressed by the "keep" side. This outcome does not preclude a recreation of this article in an encyclopedic form. Sandstein 08:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpisms[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Trumpisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, let's be clear about this. But this page is a mish-mash of Trump quotes that are supposed to make him look bad. The lead calls them "unconventional statements" that "may be regarded as unusual" but that's way too vague and subjective to form a list. (The lead also says that "Trumpism" is a play on the word "euphemism" which it clearly is not). In the end, it's OR meant to disparage Trump. Let's take a few examples that show why the list is problematic.

  • (Referring to North Korea) “I believe it’s a rough situation over there. There’s no question about it.” Seems like a pretty innocuous statement. People may disagree with this evaluation but it's not a wild statement, especially taken out of context.
  • “Well, I haven’t actually left the White House in months.” Context is everything here. It's probably not literally true but it may be referring to a period where he was busier than usual at the White House.
  • “Remember two things. Number one, I said, we’re going to be saying Christmas again. And, number two, I said I was going to give you a Christmas present.” Silly war on Christmas statement but that's completely par for the course in conservative circles.
  • “The world is not doing well and we’re going great.” Out of context, this is a routine MAGA statement that many Americans would agree with. Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I very nearly voted keep, but a Google search mostly finds results pertaining to the similarly-named topic of Trumpism, and anything relevant to this article is not sufficient quality for a BLP. We already have a list of nicknames used by Donald Trump which are much easier to define and better covered than these "Trumpisms". This article seems to mostly be WP:SYNTH attempting to make the subject look more notable than it is. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    Leaning keep per below. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the list should be reduced specific phrases that are listed, mentioned, or analyzed in reliable sources (e.g. [1]), and in general the article should provide a summary of what reliable sources have reported on the topic rather than just listing examples. In a quick search, it seems there's plenty of aspects that could be covered: the assertion that Trump gets away with statements that would end other political careers, cultural influence, responses from his children, sentiment analysis -- those are just the examples from the first couple of pages of Google News. There's a book. And sure, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I think it's worth mentioning we have Bushism and Bidenisms, so it's not like an article of this sort is... unpresidented. Jfire (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jfire's persuasive argument above, complete with citations that easily satisfy WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete because Wikipedia is not Wikiquote or Wiktionary. However, someone is willing to volunteer to rework the article to be similar to Bushism to talk about reliable reporting on the phenomenon rather than being a naked list of quotes, then would support keeping. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepfefe. There are so many articles about Trump's egregious mouth vomits, e.g. Tatler, CNN (just from a single interview), British GQ, CBS, and I haven't (afaik) duplicated any of Jfire's sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you call them "egregious mouth vomits" then you're not approaching this article with the right frame of mind. Again, I'll never be mistaken for a Trump fan and I've chuckled many times reading idiotic quotes from him but we have a NPOV to maintain here. You're basically validating the fact that this is essentially an attack page. Pichpich (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided sterling sources. The spillover contempt doesn't change that. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is dictionary definition for a slang term and a list of some unusual things that he's said with references included. Whether something he's said is "unusual" is entirely subjective and up to the writer of the news articles and the Wikipedia page to make the decision. There most definitely should be a Wiktionary page for this, and this namespace should exist as a soft redirect to it, but this seems inappropriate to have as an article and goes against WP:NOTDIC. The articles for the other presidents should be deleted in the same manner too, in my opinion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1) these are quotes, and the term "trumpism" may have been used somewhere but it is a made-up term that is not commonly used 2) there are sites for quotes, this is not one 3) there are sites for making fun of Trump, this is not one 4) any selection of quotes would be non-encyclopedic 5) quotes out of context are ripe for misinterpretation, which an encyclopedia should not promote 6) any public figure has made hundreds or thousands of statements and we wouldn't try to fit them all into Wikipedia - how about all of the strange things said by Tucker Carlson or Dan Quayle or G H Bush? Margery Taylor Green or Lauren Boebert? Or the tweets of Elon Musk? Lamona (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oooof! I just learned that we have Bushisms and Bidenisms. I'm still not getting behind this article. I think it's enough to cover this in the Donald Trump article, regardless of the precedent for Bush and Biden - WP:OTHERSTUFF. And I don't think that a long list of quotes is encyclopedic. A few quotes with due context is all that is needed, and that can fit into the article for him. That's my humble opinion. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I'd keep although there's a risk of it being basically an attack page. Trump is famous the world over for saying unusual and potentially silly things, and newspapers have definitely spent a lot of energy and effort in investigating and repeating each gaffe/weird-statement he's made. So it has become a notable subject in the Wikipedia sense. It will just need careful weeding to ensure it is encyclopaedia-worthy and history-proof. Elemimele (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete definitely delete. If Yogi Berra can have a page on WikiQuote, so can Trump (and of course he does), but there's no reason to excerpt a "best/worst of" here. Also, the whole notion of a "Trumpism" is, at best, vague, but more generally, made up and subjective. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple reliable sources defining the term and using it. How exactly is that "made up"? ––FormalDude (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any such thing. The cases I saw seemed to assume that everyone who is not a Trump supporter understands them to be "characteristically stupid things Trump said" but when it comes down to it, it's not specific statements: it's that Trump spews a constant stream of stupid/false/ego-maniacal utterances to the point where there's no real point in picking any particular ones out. It makes sense to have a passage on that in his biography about this, but enumeration is pointless and unbounded. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. What would a clear set of inclusion criteria look like? The main difference between Bushisms and Trumpisms is there are so many (so very many) words from Trump, and so many more news outlets covering him with more regularity. Bush had his famous goofy things he's said, but (a) there was no Twitter, and (b) he wasn't constantly, desperately trying to be in the spotlight by spamming provocations or thumb-mashing half-baked hot takes about what he was watching on Fox. There are just so many crazy quotes that I'm not sure how an encyclopedic list could properly filter them without relying on listicles-of-the-moment. If someone has an idea, I'm all ears, but for now it just seems like a collection of some random subset of the hundred thousand "get a load of what he said now!" bits. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this even comparable to Bushism? That’s a well sourced article with clear, covered relevance. As is Chernomyrdinka which isn’t even treated as a bad thing. As this stands, it’s no more than an attack page of questionable comments Trump has said, which obviously isn’t encyclopedic or WP:NPOV. Might as well add every one of his tweets or posts on whatever social media he uses now. Highway 89 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While not formatted as a list, this list of statements basically fails WP:NLIST as being indiscriminate. What makes Bushism or Bidenism distinct is that there is RS coverage of the subject's speaking style and the specific isms are used as examples, not a list. Is see no RS coverage that define a Trumpismm, other than a list of possible examples. The PBS article mentioned above offers this: "Lobbing rhetorical stink bombs at a large group of voters is not the normal way to get ahead in U.S. politics. Nor is alienating prominent figures of your own party. But Donald Trump has turned the do’s and don’ts of campaigns on their head, prospering with tactics that could sink anyone else." The Politico article is a "(highly subjective) list of 155 of Trump’s most controversial, most eyebrow raising, most mystifying, even amusing “Trumpisms.” So, all we have is a indiscriminate list of controversial or unconventional quotes. Could there be an article about Trump's speaking style, probably, but not in its current form (WP:TNT). --Enos733 (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trumpisms&oldid=1141692496"