Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumperism

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. To be frank, the page's contents just do not make any sense at all as a serious encyclopedia article, and it is much the same with the "keep" arguments here. Sandstein 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trumperism[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NEO. Google search returns mostly hashtags, and it the term doesn't appear to be used in reliable sources. Even if there were WP:RS, I'm not sure if it would belong here or on Wiktionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads more like an essay that an encyclopedia entry. Phrases like "the take over of the Republican Party by the Alt-Right blogosphere" and "talking heads", the bolding of an entire sentence, and the complete lack of citations render it unencyclopedic. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure this word even qualifies as a neologism, much less one that should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. It garners a grand total of zero Google News hits. The more regularly formed term for Donald Trump's ideology is "Trumpism", which garners a lot more Google News hits, but which is already a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. If anyone can find a politician whose surname is Trumper, then maybe we can apply the term "Trumperism" to that person's ideology instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concerns expressed above refer to statements that don't seem to be in the content. Perhaps they have been deleted. We would contend that the term Trumper is being used to describe people who follow Trump, and that the ideals laid out during Trump's campaigning process will most likely outlive the candidate's run, and even the candidate himself, we think Trumperism is gonna be a thing - is a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.242.110 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have serious doubts that this article, even if written properly and correctly sourced (the sources I looked through do not use 'trumperism' once), would belong on Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete Google search on trumperism [1] uncovers "about 470 results." at this time, including a front page listing from April 13, 2011 [2] entitled "THE BURNED OVER DISTRICT: The birth of Trumperism From the pen of Pat Oliphant" which featured only one item - a cartoon done by the political cartoonist Pat Oliphant without comment. [3] In 1990, the New York Times described Pat Oliphant as "the most influential editorial cartoonist now working".[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePolicyGeek (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As can be seen at [5] where the same Pat Oliphant cartoon was reprinted, Oliphant did not use the word "Trumperism" in his cartoon. Rather, a blogger known as "montag" put the heading "The birth of Trumperism" over the Oliphant cartoon when he reprinted it on his blog, The Burned Over District, at [6]. If the supporters of this article are trying to portray "Trumperism" as a concept distinct from "Trumpism" (the latter of which currently generates about 524,000 Google hits, much more than "Trumperism"), then they should provide sources that talk about how Trumperism is different from Trumpism. By the way, although some citations have been added to the article since this AfD began, many of them are just links to other Wikipedia articles which should have been entered as wikilinks instead. If that were done, the list of citations would be noticeably shorter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that 470 Google hits is not particularly a lot. I get 1,640 when I Google "narplot" which is a word I just made up and is certainly not notable. The 0 Google News hits speaks for itself, and to me as the nominator was one of the big reasons for the nomination, even though I didn't mention it there (thanks to Metroplitain for mentioning it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is this link that was in the entry. "Other political cartoonists, like Mark Kaufman of Drawmark posted a Cartoon entitled, "How I Spent My Summer: Trumperism"[7] in reference to Donald's Trump 2015 rallies leading up to his bid for the GOP Primary spot. It's not a made up word. Pretending "narplot" is a word is cute. Trumperism is an actual word. Perhaps the description is inartful. It's shown up consistently in blogs. This article mentions it in reference to the birtherism element of the political theory that Trumpers subscribe to.[8] On July 28, 2106 Blog Juanita Jean's used the term in her first sentence here [9]. The right scoop used the term in a piece on May 1, 2016 [10] Two Minute Politics used it in a blog on April 17, 2016[11]. GOP Lifer's blog used it Feb. 2, 2016 [12] There are a dozen more. They are not false hits.

The fifth estate is using it in detail. The Great American Balding Seagle Speaks used the term on August 19, 2016 [13]. [14] [15] tags the term Trumperism as a keyword and posted July 17, 2016. [16] [17]] which goes to that same website.

The term is being used in the common vernacular. Narplot. Outside sources cited. Wikipedia sources cited. Its an ism. Media source cited. ThePolicyGeek(talk) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (PST)

This doesn't address the issue that the word "Trumperism" is just a less common variant of the word "Trumpism", not a different (and supposedly notable) concept. I could find more and better sources that use the word "Trumpism": Politico.com, Bloomberg.com, The Atlantic, The Globe and Mail, The Week, Salon, The Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, Irish Examiner, International Business Times, etc. We don't need an article about "Trumperism" unless it is both notable in itself and different from "Trumpism". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A Trumpism is simply something that Trump has said. Trumperism seems to desrcibe the shocking nature of Donald Trump statements, [18][19], the nonapologetic way in which he delivers those statements [20], his widespread use of facts mixed with unproven facts [21][22][23][24], the pro-white and anti-minority views he expresses when discussing American minorities [25], and the way his supporters respond and act on those speeches. It would appear Trumperism is the style with which his believers act-out their support. Trumperism is less about the candidate, and more about the movement and beliefs his followers, in turn, espouse. [26][27][28][29][30] Democracy now ~~ LLieblein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.242.110 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it is not a notable neologism ThePolicyGeek cited it as something in common vernacular, even if that were a criteria for inclusion (which it isn't) it isn't in common vernacular. It's an obscure term, that some people might use, but that the majority of people aren't using. Trumpism is a much more common term, and even then we don't have an article on it, but have it instead as a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- do not delete

(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.242.110 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic neologism. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 31 August 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.