Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump's razor

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. Although it has been pointed out that this neologism has been covered by the media, consensus here is that it doesn't quite meet the notability threshold. This does not rule out a possible mention in a topically related article. Sandstein 10:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's razor

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

This is a manor theme, and not worth a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scalzi and Marshall were classmates; they're the only two using this term, and do so in their own self-published blogs. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mikeblas. This is not even a well-known meme within the context of the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, much less one that warrants encyclopedic coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the comments above. Safiel (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, protect from creation, close thread, and warn the page creator. Completely fails
WP:GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete That people publish overly insulting and stupid things on their blogs is one thing, until this regularly appears in things that are reliable sources, we should not even mention it in other articles, let alone have an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what a manor theme is, but Trump's razor appears in many publications, some mainstream publications, some smaller, over many months. Nereocystis (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Washington Post article, by Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University Why Donald Trump is going to Mexico
- James Fallow in The Atlantic, July, 2016 'A Fundamental Decency': The Difference Between Rob Ford and Donald Trump
- Wall Street Journal Opinion, September, 2016 Trump Goes to Mexico
- From Liberal Geek. Trump's Razor and the Sniffles
- Interview by Jacob Weisberg of Josh Marshall Trump's razor.
- Occam’s Razor repurposed to ‘Trump’s Razor’ and, additionally, “Boris’ Razor
Keep It's in the news and this is a good explanation. -- Elphion (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC) PS: he means "minor theme".[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Term has been in widespread use for a sustained period of time, as any simple websearch clearly indicates. As such, article passes N through
WP:SUSTAINED The article even taught me what the term meant. That's a textbook example of what an encyclopedia does. X4n6 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep In addition to the mentions in news media noted above by Nereocystis (I have beefed up the article with citations to a few of these), the term has been used hundreds of times in discourse on Twitter. So quite a lot of people are talking about it. In other news—which, mind you, I don't expect to have much weight in a "Keep" decision—"Trump's Razor" mugs and T-shirts are now being peddled. Does a T-shirt confer notability? Beamjockey (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not possibly fail
WP:GNG any harder. Thefoolofemmaus (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to something more appropriate. Clearly it's been mentioned by a few media sources so perhaps we can find an article into which it could be merged. This is Paul (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a brief flurry of campaign-related chatter does not make a neologism encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 22 October 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.