Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's rhetoric

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's rhetoric

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

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

the scope of this article is undefined and could include anything the man has ever said about anything in his lifetime soibangla (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as brought up at the talkpages of Donald Trump & Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, there's plenty of sources to support this article's existence. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
those discussions were specifically regarding his authoritarian rhetoric, rather than an expansive and undefined review of all his rhetoric. soibangla (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page can be re-named, having his 'authoritarian' rhetoric included in the content. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Definitely "not ready for prime time" in its current state, but has potential for expansion and refinement. I agree with the nominator that there needs to be a more defined focus. A renaming should be considered as well. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per WP:HEY. The changes made to the article following my initial comments (in favor of draftifying) and arguments made by others (particularly SPECIFICO) in favor of keeping the page have convinced me to reconsider. It clearly needs more work, and renaming to Rhetoric of Donald Trump is strongly advised, but I now believe there is sufficient sourcing and enough encyclopedic content to justify keeping in mainspace. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying, would be my second choice. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trump's rhetoric in-and-of-itself is notable and has been analysed scholars. I'll link to a few papers and books dedicated to it: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], though somehow I can't find the couple of papers I remember reading that were on-point. Per my comment on the talk page I recommend treating this as separate from the planned article on authoritarianism. I also oppose draftifying because it no longer meets the WP:DRAFTIFY criteria since it was expanded after the comments above; it now has merit and contains a reasonable amount of verifiable information. DFlhb (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall there was the planned article on authoritarianism. Rather, creation of this article seems to be a broad and undefined invitation to include everything the man has ever said about anything, since the 1970s. Imagine the possibilities. Even renaming the article to Trump authoritarian rhetoric should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP. I am increasingly concerned that relegating this to ancillary articles is a deliberate effort to exclude any mention of his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP, despite it being abundantly sourced for years as a distinctive characteristic of the man. soibangla (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP Categorically yes.

I am increasingly concerned that[...] So am I. The way I see it is that I've presented enough sources for it that non-inclusion in the main BLP would be counter to policy, and there's recourse for that.

There's also recourse against people who would try to include irrelevant material from sources that don't analyse aspects of his rhetoric directly and in depth. DFlhb (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, but AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic is notable since Trump's rhetoric has received a lot of attention and has been analysed by a number of people. Cortador (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Needs lots of work and attention, which I hope will be sparked by this AfD. There are many secondary and tertiary RS publications to support relevant content. It's possible the page title will be tweaked, and it should not be viewed as a fork of the main Trump page, where there's obstinate, insupportable, opposition to even a brief mention of his most significant recent themes and preparations for his second term. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Half the article is just an excerpt of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and the page needs more work before it's ready for mainspace. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that suggests that at least half the article is at least properly sourced. Draft will get less attention and less of a chance to develop. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTPROMO "Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Campaign rhetoric and character assassinations, leading up to a presidential election. And-or for daily postings in his legal issues/comments. It gives his supporters a cut and paste quickie for their social network postings. This would amount to a forum in the guise of a Wikipedia article. We really shouldn't be giving any candidate this. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such content would not remain in any article for long, per NPOV weight, NOTNEWS, etc. The same concern could be raised with respect to any article about a political campaign, a performing artist, et al. There is a substantial literature that presents expert and, increasingly, shcolarly summary and analysis of the themes and narratives of his public speech. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Initially my position was that this topic was too poorly defined to merit an article, but upon doing some research, it turns out there are a fair number of scholarly works on this exact topic (i.e. Trump's methods of persuasion and modes of communication) including a scholarly book by this very name : https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rr6dh8. (We should likewise rename this page Rhetoric of Donald Trump, I think.) The extent of the literature leads me to think the topic is indeed notable and has drawn significant scholarly and media attention. This, however, is not the topic that was being proposed on Donald Trump's Authoritarianism, nor should an article on either of these topics be taken as an excuse to continue omitting discussion of the scholarly literature and extremely extensive media coverage of Trump's authoritarian inclinations or statements from the main article. That omission of one of the most widely written about aspects of the man continues to be scandalous.67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be a good article that other aspects of Donald Trump's rhetoric can be linked to. For instance, False or misleading statements by Donald Trump which can be considered part of his "rhetoric" can be mentioned in a section here, along with List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and Social media use by Donald Trump. This page can also serve as a place to put recent concerns about his authoritarian and violent rhetoric by the media until there is enough content and coverage that its own page could be warranted. BootsED (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is taking shape and can be a good thing. Well worth keeping, and certainly passes WP:GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a significant amount of coverage discussing his rhetoric, especially after he started talking about "poisoning the nation's blood" and everything a couple weeks ago. AryKun (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above.Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. When I initially read the article, it was nothing more than a single line, but it is sourced well currently and should not be deleted or draftified in its current state. Cessaune [talk] 05:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fwiw this whole book is on the topic: Jennifer Mercieca Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump - ISBN 978-1623499068 - she outlines a lot of specific techniques he uses and why they're effective. jengod (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time to end this discussion. There has been no "delete" responses for five days, and thoese are before that are all outdated as the article has developed a great deal since then--Marginataen (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope of an article is something to be discussed and decided at the article's talk page, it is not a reason for deletion. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:45, 22 December 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.