Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump effect

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 redirect to Mode effect. MBisanz ^talk 11:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump effect[edit]

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

This is a neologism. There are three references on the article. None of them contain the string "Trump effect". So where does this name come from? When I search Google News for this string I see a lot of people using the phrase and, so far as I can see, none of them are using it in the way defined here. Even if I missed a few that are, there is clearly no settled view that it means what this article says it does. I am sure that there is an effect where people shy away from telling pollsters that they intend to vote for socially disreputable choices but this is not called the "Trump effect" by the sources which discuss this. So basically this fails on verifiability, never mind notability. DanielRigal (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference cited does talk about "Trump mode effect". See here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-embarrassment-of-supporting-donald-trump/421365/

I'll edit the article a little bit more to include "Trump mode effect" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrh168 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I am convinced but I have added an extra "find sources" line above for "Trump mode effect" so that people can check it out. I don't see the phrase "Trump mode effect" being used much in reliable sources (two hits in Google News and none in Google Newspapers) but it is being used a bit by non-RS sources and it does mean what the article says, so, if the article is kept, it would need to be renamed to Trump mode effect as clearly that is what the neologism the article defines is actually called. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence at all that this use of the expression "Trump effect" is a recognised usage. Those two words are used together in various places, in various contexts, but not with the meaning attributed to them in this article. The expression "Trump mode effect" is used once by one person, in a meaning close to what this article refers to, but I see no evidence that it is a notable or generally recognised expression. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mode effect or delete. The Atlantic explains the phenomenon as an example of "mode effect". To extrapolate from that into a "Trump Effect" is original research. Like JamesBWatson above, I see lots of results for journalists who have labeled various things the "Trump Effect", but there does not seem to be any unifying definition of what this is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another very poor Trump-related article. Basically non-existent sourcing. Unquestionably fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that the question is not what is now in the article, but, rather, Is the topic notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, this needs to be renamed since "Trump effect" is so commonly used as a phrase in articles discussing the impact of Trump's unusual campaign on the policy positions taken by other candidates, on down ballot candidates, on the GOP, on turnout, and so forth [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or , Possibly rename and keep an article on Trump campaign and polling, since there is significant, serious discussion in newspapers of this topic. As here [2], and more broadly in the massive coverage of the fact that polling has consistently under-predicted the actual vote Trump receives. Frankly, I see this as yet another instance of what a poor job Wikipedia is doing in covering Trump. I know that none of us is paid, and most of us edit more on the candidates we love, but as a group we documentably skew left and demonstrably have a hard time being evenhanded on this election. Nevertheless, rather than delete this, we need to take this and the rest of the Trump phenom seriously and redirecting this to a Polling section on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. imo, part of the reason for Trump's rise is the failure of the (joke alert) Adlei Stevenson backers to take Trump seriously. Wikipedia is as guilty of this as the rest of the media. And the editors who reflexively rush to delete Trump pages or hold themselves aloof from serious editing on Trump pages are probably helping Trump by convincing voters that the "media" are part of a giant anti-Trump conspiracy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to Trump mode effect. Thank you all for your efforts at staying impartial. There is a lot of press coverage for the rise of candidate Trump. A lot of those news articles talks about how wrong the polls have been. This article is highly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrh168 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mode effect as there is not very much coverage of this phenomenon as it specifically relates to Trump, and this coverage seems insufficient to necessitate or justify a separate article on the effect specifically regarding Trump. But there is some coverage aside from the aforementioned Atlantic piece (e.g. [3] [4] [5]), which is why I am not voting delete. Everymorning (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps at best and I would've nearly closed this myself, there's nothing suggesting its own solid article. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated again and again above, this is merely one specific form of a general concept that's, by far, not unique to Trump. What one's own person feelings are about the man aren't relevant. It's a matter of sourcing. I don't object to a possible future redirect over to mode effect, but this article here should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added more examples and more citation of the trump mode effect. The new citation talk a lot more about how and why white voters do not want to publicly support Donald Trump. Zrh168 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mode effect. There does appear to be some mentions of this term, so I think a redirect couldn't hurt. However, I'm not convinced that the term has had enough coverage for it's own article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:50, 17 May 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.