Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump-Mexico Deal

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 Snow delete here and author request equals speedy delete G7. Peridon (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump-Mexico Deal[edit]

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

The large number of sources doesn't change the basic fact that this article is an opinion piece, not a neutral point of view encyclopedic article, and that it cannot readily be reworked into a suitable article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, Trump isn't even the president yet. Unless Trump announces a formal deal with Mexico as the POTUS, an article is not yet suitable since most of these reports are speculative. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't an article, it's a personal essay, right down to the author's signature at the end. Anmccaff (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.! The subject is an important matter, this "deal" with Mexico, started since the Trump (the person) announced he was running for President. This is a important thing since this relation now will decide de future of millions, Wikipedia does not have this subject. It will need much contribution since thing will happen until it is settle in to what way to go. Every thing in it is a compilation of what has being said by experts, the exact words said by experts was used and can be confirmed by reading in the links. What you decide is fine, if it is to delete it, or keep contributing to make it better. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedia article but rather an advocacy essay. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. All of our articles must be written from the neutral point of view, and this one isn't. Writing neutrally is a core content policy and is not negotiable. The article title is not appropriate, since there is no deal between Trump and Mexico. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The dealing started since Trump took the Mexican subject as a campaign the end of the deal, what will happen, we dont know. If you dont see that, I understand. But every thing in this subject has being part of the Deal Trump is negotiating. he is a great negotiator, he is doing that. In time you will see the result. There are 2 points of view in this and 2 possible outcome, I took the experts of each side, give the options of that by the experts. There is no possible side the result has not happen. Is a negotiation in process. The options are there of what experts say can happen. The sources please check them. They are the most credited in the subject, there are no better ones. Trump, the Mexican President, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the NAFTA, New York Times. I am not saying this is the case, but I did a previous Article on a person that did much in history. The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, he said, the sources, that the person did not do that, etc. when I demonstrated every thing was correct, that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it. has a page with stars, he is a publisher, etc. I just want to contribute Wikipedia if good information is welcome. What ever you decide, is fine for me. Thank you NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your claim that "The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, [...] that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it" goes completely against the automatically generated page histories of the article, your talk page, and Robert McClenon's. This has been pointed out for you before: quit lying about other users and start paying attention to what they are saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson I did not say that. What I said is that in the past I did an other Article, a (other) person, market for deletion, etc. Not the person you are saying of whom I dont have an opinion at this moment. Please keep communication according to Wikipedia. I only try to contribute to Wikipedia. NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. This is an essay, full of original research and pov-pushing. It might be possible to create a good article on this subject, but this isn't it. Bradv 18:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this topic has potential, but would have to be written carefully to stay neutral and not drift either way, advocacy or Trump-bashing. I don't think the original revision, which I looked at, meets that criteria. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete now that it has been blanked. Lepricavark (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since NORMAN PRINCE, the article's author, blanked it, I have requested speedy deletion under WP:G7. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2016 (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.